Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Take that taxman!!!



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/23/two-heterosexual-irish-men-marry-to-avoid-inheritance-tax-on-house

It's like one of those Holywood films, but now it's real.

Good on them for giving the taxman a boot to the rear

but where does this leave society, marriage, tax, truth, justice?

The modern world confuses the feth out of me

Because heterosexual people have never married for convenience. If they don’t want this to happen, there shouldn’t be tax advantages to being married!

I suppose the flip side is when will they start saying that any two guys sharing a flat for six months are probably gay and should be treated as a couple. If one of them is unemployed they’ll cut off their JSA saying their ‘partner’ is expected to support them!

It mostly makes me wonder why inheritance tax is a thing in the first place. Why should the government have a say in to whom you leave your property.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Because heterosexual people have never married for convenience. If they don’t want this to happen, there shouldn’t be tax advantages to being married!

I suppose the flip side is when will they start saying that any two guys sharing a flat for six months are probably gay and should be treated as a couple. If one of them is unemployed they’ll cut off their JSA saying their ‘partner’ is expected to support them!

The whole system needs a root and branch reform. We, as a society, need to take a long hard look at the concept of marriage. I'm not talking about same sex relationships here, I'm talking about the financial aspect. After all, is it fair for single people to miss out on a bonus like this?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It mostly makes me wonder why inheritance tax is a thing in the first place. Why should the government have a say in to whom you leave your property.

They don't. What they do have a say in is whether your income should be taxed, and if someone gives you a house then that's a fair bit of capital you've just acquired and should probably be taxed on. If it didn't happen then wealth would just become even further concentrated in the hands of the 'haves'.

Mind you, the ultra-rich have numerous schemes to get around the tax (such as inheriting the 'trust' that owns the properties rather than owning them yourself) so it's really just hitting the middle classes.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It mostly makes me wonder why inheritance tax is a thing in the first place. Why should the government have a say in to whom you leave your property.

I read somewhere that property is often seen as 'dead' money, and really contributes zero to growth or the economy.

For example, If person X leaves a 1 million dollar house to person Y, and that area becomes redeveloped with new roads, buildings, railway, whatever,

then that house value goes up. Person Y has doubled their fortune, but hasn't lifted a finger to create that new wealth.

It's the sort of thing that imbalances the housing market and creates bubbles, or something like that


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Riquende wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It mostly makes me wonder why inheritance tax is a thing in the first place. Why should the government have a say in to whom you leave your property.

They don't. What they do have a say in is whether your income should be taxed, and if someone gives you a house then that's a fair bit of capital you've just acquired and should probably be taxed on. If it didn't happen then wealth would just become even further concentrated in the hands of the 'haves'.

Mind you, the ultra-rich have numerous schemes to get around the tax (such as inheriting the 'trust' that owns the properties rather than owning them yourself) so it's really just hitting the middle classes.

What I wanted to say, but better.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Because heterosexual people have never married for convenience. If they don’t want this to happen, there shouldn’t be tax advantages to being married!

I suppose the flip side is when will they start saying that any two guys sharing a flat for six months are probably gay and should be treated as a couple. If one of them is unemployed they’ll cut off their JSA saying their ‘partner’ is expected to support them!

The whole system needs a root and branch reform. We, as a society, need to take a long hard look at the concept of marriage. I'm not talking about same sex relationships here, I'm talking about the financial aspect. After all, is it fair for single people to miss out on a bonus like this?

As it stands, if two single people are sharing a home then they are treated separately and can claim benefits, tax credits, JSA, etc as individuals. But if they are a ‘couple’ living in the same circumstances they are expected to financially support each other and finances are treated jointly. Why is that? The household income and expenses are no different whether they sleep together or not. If someone needs financial support they need it, it doesn’t matter if they are just friends with their flat mate or in a relationship with them.

I recall one of these ‘benefits scroungers’ programmes on TV once where a single mother was being badgered about the fact a female friend frequently visited her and slept over. She said that it was just a friend to help with the children but the investigators kept saying they’d heard she was a lesbian and this woman was her partner. After some hours she gave in and admitted as such and they said she was going to be cut off as she had a partner to support her. The investigators seemed really proud of their work, yet after the programme it was said the woman just agreed to get out of the interview and was appealing. You have to ask, either she has enough money to live off or she doesn’t. Why does it depend on whether she sleeps with her ‘friend’ as to wether she’s eligible for support?

 Riquende wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It mostly makes me wonder why inheritance tax is a thing in the first place. Why should the government have a say in to whom you leave your property.

They don't. What they do have a say in is whether your income should be taxed, and if someone gives you a house then that's a fair bit of capital you've just acquired and should probably be taxed on. If it didn't happen then wealth would just become even further concentrated in the hands of the 'haves'.

Mind you, the ultra-rich have numerous schemes to get around the tax (such as inheriting the 'trust' that owns the properties rather than owning them yourself) so it's really just hitting the middle classes.

Sorry my mistake. I thought they were exempt from inheritance tax if it was going to another family member, apparently over there even children have to pay it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It mostly makes me wonder why inheritance tax is a thing in the first place. Why should the government have a say in to whom you leave your property.

I read somewhere that property is often seen as 'dead' money, and really contributes zero to growth or the economy.

For example, If person X leaves a 1 million dollar house to person Y, and that area becomes redeveloped with new roads, buildings, railway, whatever,

then that house value goes up. Person Y has doubled their fortune, but hasn't lifted a finger to create that new wealth.

It's the sort of thing that imbalances the housing market and creates bubbles, or something like that

It seems slightly problematic when the person who is inheriting doesn't already have a large capital though, I guess that doesn't come up too often though.

But I can't help but feel it's basically just a tax on dying If the person was alive and new roads/buildings/railway/whatever was built then the value of the house goes up and the person hasn't lifted a finger to create that new wealth either. It's just by dying the government decides to step in and take a bit off the top.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
As it stands, if two single people are sharing a home then they are treated separately and can claim benefits, tax credits, JSA, etc as individuals. But if they are a ‘couple’ living in the same circumstances they are expected to financially support each other and finances are treated jointly. Why is that? The household income and expenses are no different whether they sleep together or not. If someone needs financial support they need it, it doesn’t matter if they are just friends with their flat mate or in a relationship with them.

They aren't treated the same because that's how relationships work. If you're in a live-together relationship with someone you have joint finances. For example, if one of you buys groceries it's presumed that the other will be eating them too. You probably share cars. Etc. So it's reasonable to treat the couple as a single unit for purposes of determining how much income they have. And it avoids the absurd situation where one partner is a stay at home parent with no income of their own with the other partner making millions in a nice job, and the stay at home partner getting the same welfare support as someone who is genuinely poor. On the other hand, if you're living with a roommate you normally don't have joint finances. Any money the roommate has is not available to you, so you get counted separately.

Now, it does raise the question of why it's considered so important to give people nothing but the absolute bare minimum to keep them alive, and spend resources (probably more than it would cost to just let them have the money) to deny support if there's any justification at all for doing so. But that's a separate issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's just by dying the government decides to step in and take a bit off the top.

Actually this isn't true, at least in the US. If the value of property increases you have to pay higher property taxes every year, even if that increase in value was entirely passive and accidental. Inheritance taxes aren't a special tax, they're just the government declining to give you a tax cut on the transfer of property. You'd pay the same tax if someone gave you the property without dying. If anything inheritance taxes are less of a tax burden than they would normally be, as the full value isn't always taxed.

I feel like Howard A Treesong nailed it on post one and there's really nowhere else for this to go but downhill.

I have joked about this with my brother. He and his wife could adopt me for those sweet taxation bonuses.
But it appears that your brother can't adopt you as his son

So if I am sleeping with my poor roommate, the government expects part of that sexual contract to extend to me feeding her too?

That doesn't seem quite right. Sure I could chose to feed her, buy her food, clothes, whatever. But isn't that my choice? Just because we've had sex, she's now my financial responsibility to support?

What if I sleep with multiple poor girls? Am I now obliged to financially support them?

Or I'm poor, and now I feth a rich girl. Now she's expected to buy my food?

We, as a society, have decided that tranfers of wealth (income/inheritance, etc) are what we tax. It makes sense that inheritance is taxed.

Small nitpick. If you receive a large gift, you don't pay any tax on it. The person giving the gift is supposed to pay the tax on it. Same with inheritance.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
So if I am sleeping with my poor roommate, the government expects part of that sexual contract to extend to me feeding her too?

Yes, it's generally assumed that if you're sleeping with someone and like them enough to move in together you probably have a close enough relationship that you've got joint finances and are living as a couple, not two financially-independent individuals who offer each other nothing but sex and live together by pure coincidence.

 Peregrine wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
So if I am sleeping with my poor roommate, the government expects part of that sexual contract to extend to me feeding her too?

Yes, it's generally assumed that if you're sleeping with someone and like them enough to move in together you probably have a close enough relationship that you've got joint finances and are living as a couple, not two financially-independent individuals who offer each other nothing but sex and live together by pure coincidence.

But this, as you freely say is an assumption, which I imagine most of the time is correct.

However, society and the government is making this an expectation. If I sleep with my poor roommate, we are a couple and I _have_ to provide for her, her benefits _will_ be withdrawn and we will be assessed jointly.

We do this specifically because I am occasionally sticking one part of me into her, largely irrespective of anything else we have in place.

Basically, if you're a poor girl, don't sleep with anyone or the government will take your benefits away, and you'll become dependent on them. Particularly if you're a single mother.

To me, this doesn't seem right. [Speaking as a Devil's advocate in hypotheticals.] If we're going to help the poor, I don't think it should be based on who, or if, they're having a sexual relationship with.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Basically, if you're a poor girl, don't sleep with anyone or the government will take your benefits away, and you'll become dependent on them.

Or don't sleep with people you live with. None of this applies if you aren't living with the person you're sleeping with.

If we're going to help the poor, I don't think it should be based on who, or if, they're having a sexual relationship with.

It's not a sexual relationship, it's a couple relationship. It's just not very convincing if you try to argue that the person you're sleeping with, and like enough to live with, is not your partner and you don't share any finances.

In any case, the reason for this should be obvious. If a couple can just say "we're not together, we're just living together and having sex and all that, but we aren't really a couple" and separate their finances then it's way too easy to abuse. If you're a stay-at-home partner you can get all those welfare payments/tax credits/etc (which then get shared with your "not-partner") simply by saying "we're separate", even if the other person is making well over the limit. You obviously have to have some kind of "if it quacks like a duck..." test where people who look like they're together by any reasonable standard are treated as being together.

 Peregrine wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Basically, if you're a poor girl, don't sleep with anyone or the government will take your benefits away, and you'll become dependent on them.

Or don't sleep with people you live with. None of this applies if you aren't living with the person you're sleeping with.

If we're going to help the poor, I don't think it should be based on who, or if, they're having a sexual relationship with.

It's not a sexual relationship, it's a couple relationship. It's just not very convincing if you try to argue that the person you're sleeping with, and like enough to live with, is not your partner and you don't share any finances.

So my/other peoples sex life should be decided by taxtation law, and that's fair and proper?

I mean it is, presently, yes. But my arguement is that it shouldn't be.

It doesn't need to be convincing. Either it's true, or it's not. If it is true, then why should it have to be tax related?

The very premisis of my arguement is that taxation and sexuality and relationships shouldn't be intermingled.Who someone sleeps with should have a legal impact on their financial status. Sexuality and relationships are not the governments business, and the present laws really struggle when faced with Polygamous relationships.

Who or how tax is paid shouldn't have anything to do with your love life. Particularly if your love life has a fancy piece of paper with the word marriage, which is only available to a select number of people as per the whims if this decades establishment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

In any case, the reason for this should be obvious. If a couple can just say "we're not together, we're just living together and having sex and all that, but we aren't really a couple" and separate their finances then it's way too easy to abuse. If you're a stay-at-home partner you can get all those welfare payments/tax credits/etc (which then get shared with your "not-partner") simply by saying "we're separate", even if the other person is making well over the limit. You obviously have to have some kind of "if it quacks like a duck..." test where people who look like they're together by any reasonable standard are treated as being together.

Because in your view, the rich partner has a legal obligation to support the poorer one?

I respect that's your view, but I disagree. I don't think it's their obligation, it should be their choice, and it'd be super nice if we lived in a society and cluture where those not in need of benefits felt able to give them back to the government. [As is occasionally the case.]

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
So my/other peoples sex life should be decided by taxtation law, and that's fair and proper?

No, your living situation is determined by taxation law. Nothing is stopping you from having sex with someone and living separately. But if you're going to merge your lives to the point of living together you get to be treated as a single unit by the government.

The very premisis of my arguement is that taxation and sexuality and relationships shouldn't be intermingled.

Ok, let's have a hypothetical example that shows why you're wrong. I'm unemployed, because work. My partner makes $10,000,000 a year. We live together, have sex frequently, etc, and generally do all of those couple things. Should I be entitled to welfare payments/tax credits/etc as long as I tell the government "we're not together"? Or should the government recognize the obvious facts of the situation, that we're a couple making an average of $5,000,000 a year each and do not need any support?

and the present laws really struggle when faced with Polygamous relationships

This is a fair point. The current situation is one where the laws are poorly designed as a result of " YOU JESUS HATES THAT" attitudes. But it's an easy and straightforward problem to fix, one that doesn't require a complete redesign of how we treat marriage and relationships in general. All you have to do is replace "two" with "two or more", and adjust any financial calculations appropriately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Because in your view, the rich partner has a legal obligation to support the poorer one?

No, but to suggest that they aren't supporting the poorer one is absurdity. Do you honestly think that people in serious live-together relationships are strictly separating their finances, and never getting any support from their partners? That if, say, they go out to a restaurant they get separate checks and the poorer partner has to buy their own dinner, instead of the couple putting both meals on their joint credit card? That, if the poorer partner's car is in for repairs, the richer partner charges a per-mile rental rate for any use of their car? Of course not. Maybe there's a situation once in a while where that happens, but it's an extreme outlier. And making laws that can function properly for the majority of situations while still handling every possible outlier is an exercise in futility.

Yes, you should be entitled to benfitis in that situation. Just because your chosen partner has the capability to support you does not mean that they _Have_ to do so. You are a poor individual, and should be treated accordingly.

However, if you're not working because 'Beep Work', you'd be treated as such, as even the current benefits system requires you to be making an effort to find work, and you lose your benefits if you're not able to do so.

However, if you are entitled to those benefits because of your situation, your partner should not affect your income stream.

This might lead to situations where you can't leave your partner, let's say they're abusive. But you have no access, or capability to access your own income. Let's say your unable to work, because you're sick for example. Now you're totally dependent on your partner, and unable to leave even if you wish to do so, as you'd not be entitled to any benefits till after you'd left, and you're unable to leave because your previous partner was rich.

In the same situation where your partner was poor, however, you'd be able to access the resources to terminate the relationship.


I get your belief system, I do. I'm all for disliking people who claim benefits that they don't _need_ and would urge them to return them to the government. None they less the exist for important reasons and expecting and _legally_ expecting the partner to cover for them is fair on neither party.


Edit-

I don't believe they're _not_ supporting each other. I believe they should have the _right_ to not support each other. The rich partner should not _have_ to buy the poorer partner food, and merge their finances. It should be their choice, and not enforced upon them by taxation. Power to them if that's how their relationship works, but I am 200% against the government impacting how people chose to live their lives with each other.

People have got confused. Sex and living together have nothing to do with it. It’s the marriage that is the bit where the government assumes you have responsibilities to each other. You can have sex with who you like, or live with who you like but getting married in the states eyes (rather than religious) is a legal contract that you are responsible for each other. That is why common law marriage causes so much confusion an problems.

 Peregrine wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Basically, if you're a poor girl, don't sleep with anyone or the government will take your benefits away, and you'll become dependent on them.

Or don't sleep with people you live with. None of this applies if you aren't living with the person you're sleeping with..

Is it reasonable the government expect you to detail the nature of the personal/sexual relationship you have with a flat mate? You might have some friends with benefits, casual arrangement where you don’t support each other. Some married couples don’t have joint bank accounts so proving ‘joint finances’ isn’t so straightforward in a flat where all the bills are jointly paid. Seems to me that this all breaks down and requires someone in authority making judgments on the nature of people’s private lives which is a matter of opinion rather than a specific measure. Given how much those private companies involved with such assessments are keen to find any excuse to cut people off benefits it won’t surprise me when two mates sharing a flat get told they’re a gay couple and one has to support the other unless they can prove otherwise. How do you prove that anyway? I lived with my best friend for two years, they’ve only my word we were only mates, he paid the bills and I gave him cash, I didn’t think about setting stuff up to make our finances clearly separate.

If you get married then you’re making it clear you are supporting each other. That’s cut and dried. But when people aren’t married, and the government just make the assumption they’re partners that support each other, seems very shaky ground. If you want the pros and cons of being married, that’s your choice to get married. I don’t agree that people not married are treated like being married for tax and benefits purposes, or that the authorities should base such things on assumptions of your personal arrangements. Really, if you don’t get married how can they truly say with any authority you’re committed to supporting each other financially?

Hahaha. I fething knew it!

All of the progressives were like, "No, nothing of the sort will ever happen!"

The government gives financial incentives to married hetero couples for one very cynical reason.

They breed the next generation of taxpayer.

Something the gays and singles are not doing.

“The gays”?

Anyway, no one said any such thing. The inheritance laws for partners are to ensure that a surviving partner doesn’t have to pay some huge tax bill for a property they still use or money that they need. Nothing to do with children. There are specific child inheritance rules to deal with that, which change from country to country. People knew it would happen, just as it can happen with opposite sex friends, and just as marriage of convenience can happen with people wanting visas. Most western countries have laws in place about who can get married for just this reason, and in the UK at least a marriage for the tax avoidance would be illigal, and I am guessing that would be the same for many other countries, and not a reason to refuse to implement gay marriage in some form, which lets (at its most basic level) couples declare their financial dependence on each other.

Mitochondria wrote:
Hahaha. I fething knew it!

All of the progressives were like, "No, nothing of the sort will ever happen!"

The government gives financial incentives to married hetero couples for one very cynical reason.

They breed the next generation of taxpayer.

Something the gays and singles are not doing.

Can't single fathers/Mothers or Gay persons have children? In what world? Homosexual female couples can have children of their own by artificial insemination, male homosexual ones can adopt (Or other more morally complex ways to have children), and both sexes of single people can have children without a problem.

 Galas wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
Hahaha. I fething knew it!

All of the progressives were like, "No, nothing of the sort will ever happen!"

The government gives financial incentives to married hetero couples for one very cynical reason.

They breed the next generation of taxpayer.

Something the gays and singles are not doing.

Can't single fathers/Mothers or Gay persons have children? In what world? Homosexual female couples can have children of their own by artificial insemination, male homosexual ones can adopt (Or other more morally complex ways to have children), and both sexes of single people can have children without a problem.

The government does not want to promote single parenthood.

Most single parent situations are in some way dependent upon the government. Ergo, they are a drain on resources.

The government hates when there is a drain on the resources.

So, no tax breaks for the singles.


The gays can have kids using expensive and convoluted methods. I bet if you looked at the percentages it is not very many who choose/can afford artificial methods.

Your wrong about single pareants, and even the ones that you are correct about a single person adoption is better than a child in care, and also, as per my previous post, partner inheritance has nothing at all to do with children.

And will you please stop using the term “the gays”. It’s dimeaning and offensive. It also makes any argument you make even weaker that it is if you were polite.

Mitochondria wrote:
Hahaha. I fething knew it!

All of the progressives were like, "No, nothing of the sort will ever happen!"

The government gives financial incentives to married hetero couples for one very cynical reason.

They breed the next generation of taxpayer.

Something the gays and singles are not doing.

Yes, this is why women who cannot, or can no longer, bear children can't get the marriage tax perks, as well as men who are infertile. That happens, right? When my wife got her tubes tied, then we stopped being married for the purposes of taxation?

also, lol at "the gays". It's rare that you see the exact point in a thread where it begins a relentless march towards being locked.

In fairness, look who it is. No debate to be hard, just laughing at how absurd it can get.

So, two people take advantage of a legal loophole. One that may be specific to the region it occurred in. Loopholes are unfortunate for society, in that society as a whole does not gain benefit where they might otherwise, but it's advantageous to the parties involved. So hooray for them, at the expense of the taxation that society would have otherwise gained.

Really, that's the end of the thread. Everything else is people's opinion on the right or wrong of it. Not gonna stop me from continuing though!


In Ontario, Canada, the benefits of being a "couple" outweigh any drawbacks, taxation wise. One partner can "shift" income to a partner that makes less, to change tax brackets.

Call me old-fashioned, but yes, if you live with someone and plan to raise a family, you are expected to share responsibilities for your lives. Full Stop. That's one of those grow-up-and-be-an-adult deals that you choose to follow or don't. Children create tax breaks because they are literally the future of humanity.

No direct slight intended to persons without children, but todays children will be supporting their childless elders as those elders age. It is in the best interest of childless persons to invest now in the future of those that will care for them as they age. Same reason childless persons pay school taxes. Do they want morons to be deciding which health treatments they get?

In conclusion, investing in children is good for everyone. Making the lives of their caregivers easier is one of many ways to do that. No, it does not matter that you didn't explicitly agree to that arrangement. You're a part of society, without your explicit agreement. You pay into a society without explicit agreement, and you're provided public services, again, without your explicit agreement.

If you don't like it, find somewhere else to go. Don't go to school, don't use roads, don't use goods that traveled on roads. Don't eat food you didn't grow, or hunt. Don't wear clothes you didn't make. Stay away from hospitals, and die in your early teens from an easily treated infection. Or, if in the 1/2 chance you make it to child-having age, take a 1/10 chance [or higher] of dying in childbirth. Enjoy Polio, measles, smallpox, and all those other fun diseases that are treated by vaccinations... publicly funded. Don't use home making materials that you didn't make yourself. Avoid electricity that you don't produce from copper you mined and magnets you mined, and then shaped and forged into a generator. Get off the internet.

So yeah, pay your taxes, and be grateful there will be future generations.

 Ouze wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
Hahaha. I fething knew it!

All of the progressives were like, "No, nothing of the sort will ever happen!"

The government gives financial incentives to married hetero couples for one very cynical reason.

They breed the next generation of taxpayer.

Something the gays and singles are not doing.

Yes, this is why women who cannot, or can no longer, bear children can't get the marriage tax perks, as well as men who are infertile. That happens, right? When my wife got her tubes tied, then we stopped being married for the purposes of taxation?

also, lol at "the gays". It's rare that you see the exact point in a thread where it begins a relentless march towards being locked.

Way to pull out the outliers as an example.

Almost every hetero couple is fully capable of procreation.

I am not sure if your argument is classified as "whataboutism" or a strawman.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Your wrong about single pareants, and even the ones that you are correct about a single person adoption is better than a child in care, and also, as per my previous post, partner inheritance has nothing at all to do with children.

And will you please stop using the term “the gays”. It’s dimeaning and offensive. It also makes any argument you make even weaker that it is if you were polite.

Are you claiming that a majority of single parent households receive NO government assistance?

As in none whatsoever?

What would you prefer me to call the gays? The homosexuals?