The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Nope as they usually go privately, in any case they will have paid a lot of money into the system.

Ah ha! A caveat!

If you said that some animals have four legs and a tail, and I asked if you were talking about cats, dogs, or horses, you'd answer...
"They have stripes!"

[amogles]

	Quote:	MusicChick
	You can't really see it like that though even during low unemployment there are easy to fill jobs and not easy to fill jobs and adjustments it takes...say lower number of children, schools opening fewer classes, teachers and edu admin retraining and loking for jobs elsewhere so it takes a while and there will be more of certain job seekers than others. Especially in a place where employment under 18yr and over 50 yrs is rough to find and where for each jobs you need very particular certificates and a particular language too. Sometimes languages and certifs are canton dependent, it reduces mobility and job chances. So low unemployment is a very particular balancing act here.

The economy is cyclical and there are times when it is difficult to find a job, even if you do tick all the right boxes. It is thus a good thing we have a safety net. But phases in which large numbers of people need to rely on it should be transitional, not permanent.

I'm not opposed to a basic income per se. I think it has some very real advantages, for example salary costs for employers can be reduced meaning more people get hired. It also takes much of the initial risk out of start ups meaning lots of people with good ideas who don't know if they can make them work can finally go out and try. It could lead to a golden age of entrepreneurship. Steve Jobs started Apple out of his parents' garage at a time he still lived with his parents and didn't pay rent. Not everybody is fortunate to have parents like that. A basic income can open that channel for many people like him.

But what I don't like is the way especially the political left are spinning the idea, predicting a future where most of us won't have jobs so we might as well get paid for doing nothing. That is defeatist, a waste of human potential, and ultimately untrue. It is a thinking that drags people down rather than raising them up.

[MusicChick]

	Quote:	amogles
	The economy is cyclical and there are times when it is difficult to find a job, even if you do tick all the right boxes. It is thus a good thing we have a safety net. But phases in which large numbers of people need to rely on it should be transitional, not permanent. I'm not opposed to a basic income per se. I think it has some very real advantages, for example salary costs for employers can be reduced meaning more people get hired. It also takes much of the initial risk out of start ups meaning lots of people with good ideas who don't know if they can make them work can finally go out and try. It could lead to a golden age of entrepreneurship. Steve Jobs started Apple out of his parents' garage at a time he still lived with his parents and didn't pay rent. Not everybody is fortunate to have parents like that. A basic income can open that channel for many people like him. But what I don't like is the way especially the political left are spinning the idea, predicting a future where most of us won't have jobs so we might as well get paid for doing nothing. That is defeatist, a waste of human potential, and ultimately untrue. It is a thinking that drags people down rather than raising them up.

I agree. And think your last paragraph is a direct consequence of your previous 2 paras, justifying the idea.

The thought of possibly having more Steve Jobs because we offer them cushier start might actually not give them the incentive to start, in the first place. Meritocracy is tough but motivating, I think. And I know all about human intrinsic motivation, to the smallest atom of it. It comes from one's own responsibility, conditions are secondary and come from the outside, extrinsically.

I also think that the loudest voices about wealth distribution will be those who aren't making the money (nor own) that needs to be redistributed, it frequently is that way.

The question of "how much will we tax them" has a perfect Swiss answer.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Fund is liable to CGT with lower allowance than an individual. IHT is paid at 40% at the death of the life Tennant. All income received or not is liable to tax in the UK. They pay the tax, it does not matter where the income came from.

Only a trust fund babe, or someone whose family has Money, would say that...

Why do you keep telling me about taxation in the UK? I know this stuff. My point was, to kind of follow a thread from yours is, that trust funds are not earned, they are bestowed/inherited. The beneficiary pays tax but the funds they pay the tax on have not been earned by them. Whatever they left with, after CGT, IHT etc ( and you're not telling me they won't have taken advantage of all kinds if fancy write-off footwork) is, essentially, free money. Money they, personally, have done nothing to earn. Apart from the being born thing.

	Quote:
	Whoosh.

If you say so.

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	The only value they have would be a vote.

So a person's inherent worth is directly proportionate to the job they do /the money they earn?

Not being snarky, actually, I'm trying to understand your absolutist reasoning.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	Why do you keep telling me about taxation in the UK? I know this stuff. My point was, to kind of follow a thread from yours is, that trust funds are not earned, they are bestowed/inherited. The beneficiary pays tax but the funds they pay the tax on have not been earned by them. Whatever they left with, after CGT, IHT etc ( and you're not telling me they won't have taken advantage of all kinds if fancy write-off footwork) is, essentially, free money. Money they, personally, have done nothing to earn. Apart from the being born thing. .

So what if it is inherited?

There are no fancy right off's, no free money.

The reason for a trust is to protect assets from divorce & spend thrift family members rather than saving tax.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	The reason for a trust is to protect assets from divorce & spend thrift family members rather than saving tax.

Not entirely true. A trust can be until the beneficiary reaches a specified 'age of maturity'. It can be used reduce liability. In the case of my former landlady, it was because her father didn't see her as intelligent enough to manager her own finances, to the point that even in her 60s, she had to ask the board of trustees for the money to buy a new sofa and to call out a plumber to her broken toilet, and all whilst claiming disability benefit and a mobility allowance for her husband who had bugger all wrong with him and freely admitted it was all a scam. But who am I to complain that someone living in a house worth over £750k which they own outright, was claiming over £250 per week in benefits whilst having two tenants in an annexe building and two lodgers in their home, all of which wasn't declared.

[greenmount]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	I can think of more than 1 person that does not believe their wife or children can look after a large capital sum if he were to die, so it gets put in trust for non existent great grandchildren & gives the income only to his wife & her death their children & then grandchildren. Expenses & 3 lots of 30% IHT will ensure there is almost nothing left for the great grand children.

At least the rich end up poorer than their (fore)parents after 3 generations. (btw,it's just one cycle for people today and it's for the first time in modern history when folks around my age are poorer than their parents).
On a more serious note, not everyone will eat up all those money. If you raise spoiled rascals who never have to overcome anything that's what you get.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Not entirely true. A trust can be until the beneficiary reaches a specified 'age of maturity'. It can be used reduce liability. In the case of my former landlady, it was because her father didn't see her as intelligent enough to manager her own finances, to the point that even in her 60s, she had to ask the board of trustees for the money to buy a new sofa and to call out a plumber to her broken toilet, and all whilst claiming disability benefit and a mobility allowance for her husband who had bugger all wrong with him and freely admitted it was all a scam. But who am I to complain that someone living in a house worth over £750k which they own outright, was claiming over £250 per week in benefits whilst having two tenants in an annexe building and two lodgers in their home, all of which wasn't declared.

I did not realise you could get benefits with £750k assets, you learn something every day.
If Fraud was being committed I assume you informed the authorities & the person is now in prison.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	greenmount
	At least the rich end up poorer than their (fore)parents after 3 generations. (btw,it's just one cycle for people today and it's for the first time in modern history when folks around my age are poorer than their parents). On a more serious note, not everyone will eat up all those money. If you raise spoiled rascals who never have to overcome anything that's what you get.

No reason to be poorer than your parents, if you are thats probably because you have a job, rather than set up your own business.

I was earning twice as much as my father when I was 21, but then he wasted 50 years of his life campaigning against the Common Market / EU.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	So what if it is inherited? There are no fancy right off's, no free money. The reason for a trust is to protect assets from divorce & spend thrift family members rather than saving tax.

Inherited money is the very definition of free money, isn't it? Whatever is left after all the deductions is, simply, money that has been given/received and not earned.

No condemnation, we should all be so lucky. Because that's what it is: luck of the draw.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	Inherited money is the very definition of free money, isn't it? Whatever is left after all the deductions is, simply, money that has been given/received and not earned. No condemnation, we should all be so lucky. Because that's what it is: luck of the draw.

No more than an end of year bonus, the fact that say your father worked hard & left money to his children, whats the issue? Some people save & invest their money rather than spend it, people have a choice of what they do with their own money. You should have heard the outcry on FB from my left wing friends when the conservatives were going to increase the amount people needed to contribute to their own care, dubbed the 'death tax'.

For disclosure when my father died & I received nothing. At the time my assets were substantially greater than his so of absolutely no consequence either way.

An end of year bonus is absolutely tied up with earnings and targets etc. Not the same as inheriting. But... nevermind.

I'm sorry for your loss.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	An end of year bonus is absolutely tied up with earnings and targets etc. Not the same as inheriting. But... nevermind. I'm sorry for your loss.

I also believe that any care home fees should go against the person's estate if they have assets as it's a normal cost incurved whilst living. Having people leaving their kids 250k whilst have been given the same in care fees is indeed free money that I don't believe should be allowed.

Thank you.

[roegner]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	I also believe that any care home fees should go against the person's estate if they have assets as it's a normal cost incurved whilst living. Having people leaving their kids 250k whilst have been given the same in care fees is indeed free money that I don't believe should be allowed. Thank you.

Is that the case here? In Germany you need to pay up for the parents up to a certain level. Way back my mom (in the Netherlands) had to pay the nursing home from her pension.



I recently checked a link on health insurance premiums in Switzerland and you could get a reduction even if you had 150k savings.....

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	roegner
	Is that the case here? In Germany you need to pay up for the parents up to a certain level. Way back my mom (in the Netherlands) had to pay the nursing home from her pension. I recently checked a link on health insurance premiums in Switzerland and you could get a reduction even if you had 150k savings.....

In France the children have to contribute if they are higher earners, I think this is correct way.

[greenmount]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	No reason to be poorer than your parents, if you are thats probably because you have a job, rather than set up your own business. I was earning twice as much as my father when I was 21, but then he wasted 50 years of his life campaigning against the Common Market / EU.

Good for you, I mean wanting to do something on your own and not to depend on your father. Also, wise choice to focus on your life even if that meant business for you and not on politics. I have a vague feeling that many of those whom he opposed back then were busy taking advantages of the Common Market and now the same types of people are very pro-Brexit...
For me personally it's the other way around - my mom had/has her own company and I was always an employee (not hers, haha). For her it was a very logical choice, it made no sense to work for other people while she could do the same thing on her own. And much more profitable.
But letting our individual cases aside, I get your idea. It's not applicable to each case or situation I'm afraid and that wasn't my point anyway. Yes, I agree one can change certain things sometimes. But it takes a whole another level of motivation and hard work for some.

[amogles]

	Quote:	MusicChick
	I agree. And think your last paragraph is a direct consequence of your previous 2 paras, justifying the idea. The thought of possibly having more Steve Jobs because we offer them cushier start might actually not give them the incentive to start, in the first place. Meritocracy is tough but motivating, I think. And I know all about human intrinsic motivation, to the smallest atom of it. It comes from one's own responsibility, conditions are secondary and come from the outside, extrinsically. I also think that the loudest voices about wealth distribution will be those who aren't making the money (nor own) that needs to be redistributed, it frequently is that way. The question of "how much will we tax them" has a perfect Swiss answer.

The Swiss are by and large responsible and capable of putting the civic good before their own immediate interest. Thus in a vote they turned down a proposal to have more days off. They turned down a vote on basic income and they have turned down quite a few other bleed the rich and free money for all type initiatives. On the other hand they accepted the Minder initiative which was about transparency and fairness rather than about capping salaries as a matter of jealousy or principle. Contrary to what the opponenents of that initiative were predictiung, it has not damaged Switzerland's competitiveness, and Swiss companies can still attract good CEOs.

I think in many / most other countries, similar votes would have led to other results. Maybe the democratic and civic traditions of Switzerland show that with great responsibility also comes great restraint.

I don't necessarily agree that cushiness breeds laziness. Switzerland is a comparatively cofortable and cushy country. Education works. Opportunities are fairly well distributed. Different social strata mix much more than in other countries and there is a lot of social mobility. People with ideas and who want to innovate and start a new business can find the space to do so, even if they are poor. Yet all this works without huge amounts of free money being thrown around to oil the cogs. And this is not because of any government policy but because people voluntarily create a society that works.

How can you transfer that sort of civic culture to less functional countries?

[TonyClifton]

	Quote:
	So a person's inherent worth is directly proportionate to the job they do /the money they earn? Not being snarky, actually, I'm trying to understand your absolutist reasoning.

I didn't mean that, rather that is how the governments would view people who receive a universal basic income.

Says who? The Republicans in the US and the Tories in the UK- perhaps. The fact you expressed it probably indicates what your attitude would be.
But it does not have to be so.