Inheritance tax: An age-old dilemma for Thai lawmakers

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
Inheritance tax: An age-old dilemma for lawmakers
Sasithorn Ongdee

What will happen if the inheritance tax is revived in ways that mean Thais won't return to "happiness"?

BANGKOK: -- Several years ago, one of my cousins was approached by the owner of an orchard to buy some 10 rai of her orchard plantation in Nonthaburi.

The reason for selling the land was because she didn't have enough money to pay a transfer fee - 2 per cent of the official value of the plot inherited from her parents.

The land value was Bt10 million, so she had to pay a Bt200,000 transfer fee. She decided to sell it, otherwise she would have had to either sell other assets to pay for the fee in a bid to keep her ancestor's land - or sell part of it. Part of her land connecting to the road is narrow, so no potential buyer would be happy with a strip-shaped block.

The inheritance tax - which is imposed on assets that a person inherits - was raised in discussion and reportedly agreed to by the ruling junta led by General Prayuth Chan-ocha. Previous governments have considered this but failed to push such a measure through.

In fact, an inheritance tax was imposed from 1933 to 1942 but scrapped after facing rising opposition by the rich. Inheritance tax is a levy paid by the person who inherits an estate (money or property) or a tax levied on an heir's inherited portion of an estate. At that time, both kinds of tax were applied and the top rate was up to 20 per cent of the estate official valuation price.

Let's think about this tax. The owner of the land would have to pay as much as Bt2 million in inheritance tax if the levy previously imposed by the government was still in effect, excluding the transfer fee.

Since 2006, there have been efforts to push an inheritance tax bill, but they've never been successful.

When the tax is proposed, "fairness" for society and the country's "wealth" disparity is always raised as a pretext.

Many brisk arguments are touched off between "supporters" and "opponent" of this sort of tax.

On the opposition side, it's claimed the tax would affect small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) because they could be forced to dispose of assets that are part of their core production to pay the tax. It would also discourage savings and reduce investments. This would impact on the country's economic growth, employment, and badly affect the SMEs' decision-making in investments. Some operators might decide not to choose the better return-on-investment assets because they want to evade the inheritance tax. Last, the inheritance tax was seen as "double taxing" annual income tax.

However, some suggestions have been raised to ensure the inheritance tax can help redistribute wealth in society fairly and appropriately, and that it is efficient and practical.

Some say the government should impose either an "estate" or "inheritance" tax to avoid duplication. But the latter seems to be more fair, based on the principle you should pay on what you earn.

But should there be an exemption - a tax waiver on an amount of net inheritance so that the levy on the heirs is not too much of a burden? For example, if the net inheritance value is less than Bt5 million, it should not be taxed. An exemption should include heirs who are children and elderly people to help reduce their burden.

There should be a top rate applied with a progressive rate basis.

Statistics show that 20 per cent of wealthy people hold over 60 per cent of the nation's total assets - and few people would be adversely affected by the collection of inheritance tax.

The question then is: At what level should an exemption for inheritance tax be set in a bid to balance "income distribution" on a fair and equal basis and ensure that it does not create too much of a burden on those who are not so wealthy.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Inheritance-tax-An-age-old-dilemma-for-lawmakers-30240229.html

[thenation]2014-08-05[/thenation]

[Katipo]

5m as a cut off, and tax it in stages like they do income. Not so difficult when you think about it.

[Pib]

Just another tax to increase govt revenue.

[Ricardo]

Just another tax to increase govt revenue.

 

and thus to reduce their need to borrow, to fund infrastructure-improvements or rice-scams, or whatever.

 

Personally I think that government-spending should be fully-funded, with only a little smoothing from year-to-year, or people get used to an unrealistic/unsustainable level of spending.

 

Not that Thailand is yet nearly as bad as many Western countries, when it comes to the overall-level of government-debt.
 

[wiki12]

Surely if the inheritor has no income or substantial savings they should be exempt.

You could even argue they didn't expect or want to have the land so why should they have to pay, even for something that came from a private individual and not state (i.e. publicly funded) source.

 

Less taxes for everyone will make any economy flourish, taxes are stolen, 'mis-allocated', abused, lost and wasted, and even worse, they are used to make government bigger.

 

What does government do to improve economies?

 

Answers on a postcard please!

 

 

 

[Tao Diver]

I have never understood why the people simply allow their Government to tax them at every opportunity they can. You work and earn money and they tax you on it. Put any in the bank and earn a little interest and they tax you on it. Spend any of the money they have already taxed and they tax you again and then when you finally die they want even more of it. 

If people actually sat down and worked out just how much of their hard earned cash the Government takes there would be riots

[robblok]

Surely if the inheritor has no income or substantial savings they should be exempt.

You could even argue they didn't expect or want to have the land so why should they have to pay, even for something that came from a private individual and not state (i.e. publicly funded) source.

 

Less taxes for everyone will make any economy flourish, taxes are stolen, 'mis-allocated', abused, lost and wasted, and even worse, they are used to make government bigger.

 

What does government do to improve economies?

 

Answers on a postcard please!

 

 

 

 

- provide roads and infrastructure

- provides for a legal system to solve disputes (business)

- enters into treaties with other states for better trade

- healthcare (without good healthcare you have a bad populace)

- provides schooling

 

Taxes are never fun but necessary, and inheritance tax is normal if you don't want an inheritance or cant pay for it don't accept it.

 

Though I am normally against inheritance tax as i feel its double taxing, in Thailand with its rich that pay little tax its a real viable option if they have a 5 million threshold or so. 

[robblok]

I have never understood why the people simply allow their Government to tax them at every opportunity they can. You work and earn money and they tax you on it. Put any in the bank and earn a little interest and they tax you on it. Spend any of the money they have already taxed and they tax you again and then when you finally die they want even more of it. 

If people actually sat down and worked out just how much of their hard earned cash the Government takes there would be riots

 

I wonder why people never sit down and wonder how much it cost to run a country and its infrastructure healthcare and schooling. If that was not there there was no money to be made. 

 

But like everyone else id like to pay as less tax as possible.

[kamahele]

I believe in an inheritance tax. The rich have successfully gotten the tax reduced in my own country but this is income and should be taxed as such. So many rich Thai pay no taxes at all from what I hear from rich Thais....

[Phuket Stan]

Many countries could take a page out of the tax laws of New Zealand....in 1984 approx. a Labour (socialist govt) came to power and the finance minister who came from quite a wealthy family rewrote the whole tax laws....Inheritance, Capital Gains and many other taxes were done away with...A consumer tax (VAT or GST 10% ) was introduced on all purchases...only exemptions were financial transaction ie banking etc....tax law become so simple...the staff at the tax dept  were freed up to chase up those people & companies that cheated on their dues......inheritance tax is a double tax on people who have worked and saved hard during their lives....ok there is a lot of really rich families who just keep on passing it down but those are the ones u sue the mad dogs within the tax dept on to make sure that every dime due is paid...no fancy write-offs on business depreciation or deductions...u have to justify yr expenses...it works and really simple to make a tax return even for a business 

[Zeegator]

5m as a cut off, and tax it in stages like they do income. Not so difficult when you think about it.

 

There is no problem with how to do it, this is about whether it should be done.  A bit more difficult if you think about it.
 

[Zeegator]

Just another tax to increase govt revenue.

 

Obviously.  That is the only reason for any tax.  Well spotted.
 

[Katipo]

 

5m as a cut off, and tax it in stages like they do income. Not so difficult when you think about it.

 

There is no problem with how to do it, this is about whether it should be done.  A bit more difficult if you think about it.
 

 

 

How so? It's just about getting the levels right so you don't tax those who can least afford it. 

 

What the country can't afford it to let the '1%' (particularly Thai Chinese)  who have been steadily increasing their land holding all over the country to continue to hoard as they have been.

 

Tax land that sits idle without being used. Exempt that land from tax if it is turned into a public green space, even if only temporarily.

[Tao Diver]

 

I have never understood why the people simply allow their Government to tax them at every opportunity they can. You work and earn money and they tax you on it. Put any in the bank and earn a little interest and they tax you on it. Spend any of the money they have already taxed and they tax you again and then when you finally die they want even more of it. 

If people actually sat down and worked out just how much of their hard earned cash the Government takes there would be riots

 

I wonder why people never sit down and wonder how much it cost to run a country and its infrastructure healthcare and schooling. If that was not there there was no money to be made. 

 

But like everyone else id like to pay as less tax as possible.

 

 

The trouble is with Governments is that if they do need something they just look to raise more tax rather than reduce the spending. Most of it wasted. Before the introduction of the Fed in the USA there was no income tax yet the country seemed to mange OK. Even now income tax simply pays for the interest the Fed charges for printing the Dollar not for any infrastructure. 

[firefox999uk]

I have never understood why the people simply allow their Government to tax them at every opportunity they can. You work and earn money and they tax you on it. Put any in the bank and earn a little interest and they tax you on it. Spend any of the money they have already taxed and they tax you again and then when you finally die they want even more of it. 

If people actually sat down and worked out just how much of their hard earned cash the Government takes there would be riots

 

The Beatles did in 1966.....Taxman...1st track Revolver Album.

 

In fact is was 48 years ago today the album was released.

 

i believe, at that time for every Pound that the Beatles earned they

 

paid 19 shillings and sixpence in tax.    (1 pound = 20 shillings).

 

 

 

 

Have a Nice Day.
 

[Time Traveller]

 

I have never understood why the people simply allow their Government to tax them at every opportunity they can. You work and earn money and they tax you on it. Put any in the bank and earn a little interest and they tax you on it. Spend any of the money they have already taxed and they tax you again and then when you finally die they want even more of it. 

If people actually sat down and worked out just how much of their hard earned cash the Government takes there would be riots

 

I wonder why people never sit down and wonder how much it cost to run a country and its infrastructure healthcare and schooling. If that was not there there was no money to be made. 

 

But like everyone else id like to pay as less tax as possible.

 

all of that could easily - and more efficiently - be done by private companies. 

Secondly, governments own militias, armies, and people with guns to make sure civillians pay or be jailed.

Thirdly, governments are controlled by politicians who will always look for ways to spend money for some reason - gain votes, or benefit their own business interests - so there will only be a trend towards more and more taxes to cover these new important spending programs and they use the argument you have to justify it.

[arjunadawn]

Surely if the inheritor has no income or substantial savings they should be exempt.
You could even argue they didn't expect or want to have the land so why should they have to pay, even for something that came from a private individual and not state (i.e. publicly funded) source.
 
Less taxes for everyone will make any economy flourish, taxes are stolen, 'mis-allocated', abused, lost and wasted, and even worse, they are used to make government bigger.
 
What does government do to improve economies?
 
Answers on a postcard please!
 
 
 

There's something inherently wrong with taxing inheritance as income, when clearly it stretches the historical definition of income derived from labor- as exchange. Taxing the person rather than the actual money is dark. Monies are generally taxed as income, when a consequence of exchange. What's left should be the fruit of that labor/service to be otherwise moved around as deemed fit by the earner, in perpetuity. If society states dividend earned by then selling that fruit is also income, and taxed, ok. But mommies and daddies passing the same fruit on to children should not be taxed; this is not a sale. There's no profit on the principle. This is taxing the principle once again via the false premise that a taxable exchange took place. To "redistribute" wealth in this manner is morally bankrupt. If a society has redistributive wealth policies, ok (i guess. Like it or leave); but fracturing the continuity that binds one generation to the next by taxing their fruit again is evil, anywhere! The continuity and steadfast confidence that the product of personal industry can remain free once tithed to the taxman is a core glue that binds a people to their land, their ancestors, and their nation. Inheritance taxes are a perverted political philosophy, not a functional, practical tool of the coffers.

[Cats4ever]

 

Surely if the inheritor has no income or substantial savings they should be exempt.
You could even argue they didn't expect or want to have the land so why should they have to pay, even for something that came from a private individual and not state (i.e. publicly funded) source.
 
Less taxes for everyone will make any economy flourish, taxes are stolen, 'mis-allocated', abused, lost and wasted, and even worse, they are used to make government bigger.
 
What does government do to improve economies?
 
Answers on a postcard please!
 
 
 

There's something inherently wrong with taxing inheritance as income, when clearly it stretches the historical definition of income derived from labor- as exchange. Taxing the person rather than the actual money is dark. Monies are generally taxed as income, when a consequence of exchange. What's left should be the fruit of that labor/service to be otherwise moved around as deemed fit by the earner, in perpetuity. If society states dividend earned by then selling that fruit is also income, and taxed, ok. But mommies and daddies passing the same fruit on to children should not be taxed; this is not a sale. There's no profit on the principle. This is taxing the principle once again via the false premise that a taxable exchange took place. To "redistribute" wealth in this manner is morally bankrupt. If a society has redistributive wealth policies, ok (i guess. Like it or leave); but fracturing the continuity that binds one generation to the next by taxing their fruit again is evil, anywhere! The continuity and steadfast confidence that the product of personal industry can remain free once tithed to the taxman is a core glue that binds a people to their land, their ancestors, and their nation. Inheritance taxes are a perverted political philosophy, not a functional, practical tool of the coffers.

 

 

Inheritance tax (death duty) is not an income tax. A tax certainly, but not income. There are plus and minus arguments about this. Personally I think anything above a middle level inheritance should be taxed. It relieves the need for other taxes and prevents agglomeration of capital over generations (feudal Europe, anyone). Sorry to the TEA party type people out there.

Just for interest, does anyone know of a national defence that is run by a private company?
 

[Thai at Heart]

Just another tax to increase govt revenue.

 
and thus to reduce their need to borrow, to fund infrastructure-improvements or rice-scams, or whatever.
 
Personally I think that government-spending should be fully-funded, with only a little smoothing from year-to-year, or people get used to an unrealistic/unsustainable level of spending.
 
Not that Thailand is yet nearly as bad as many Western countries, when it comes to the overall-level of government-debt.
 

Considering the amount of evasion and black money in Thailand, this is a must.

[arjunadawn]

 

Surely if the inheritor has no income or substantial savings they should be exempt.
You could even argue they didn't expect or want to have the land so why should they have to pay, even for something that came from a private individual and not state (i.e. publicly funded) source.
 
Less taxes for everyone will make any economy flourish, taxes are stolen, 'mis-allocated', abused, lost and wasted, and even worse, they are used to make government bigger.
 
What does government do to improve economies?
 
Answers on a postcard please!
 
 
 

There's something inherently wrong with taxing inheritance as income, when clearly it stretches the historical definition of income derived from labor- as exchange. Taxing the person rather than the actual money is dark. Monies are generally taxed as income, when a consequence of exchange. What's left should be the fruit of that labor/service to be otherwise moved around as deemed fit by the earner, in perpetuity. If society states dividend earned by then selling that fruit is also income, and taxed, ok. But mommies and daddies passing the same fruit on to children should not be taxed; this is not a sale. There's no profit on the principle. This is taxing the principle once again via the false premise that a taxable exchange took place. To "redistribute" wealth in this manner is morally bankrupt. If a society has redistributive wealth policies, ok (i guess. Like it or leave); but fracturing the continuity that binds one generation to the next by taxing their fruit again is evil, anywhere! The continuity and steadfast confidence that the product of personal industry can remain free once tithed to the taxman is a core glue that binds a people to their land, their ancestors, and their nation. Inheritance taxes are a perverted political philosophy, not a functional, practical tool of the coffers.
 

 
Inheritance tax (death duty) is not an income tax. A tax certainly, but not income. There are plus and minus arguments about this. Personally I think anything above a middle level inheritance should be taxed. It relieves the need for other taxes and prevents agglomeration of capital over generations (feudal Europe, anyone). Sorry to the TEA party type people out there.
Just for interest, does anyone know of a national defence that is run by a private company?
 

Ok. Yes. In this light I see your point. If not enacted wealth will eventually dwindle, over time, into fewer hands. Hrmm. My mind can see this. This would actually be worse than what I've suggested is "evil." Still, it feels wrong, at first glance. Thanks for giving me something to chew on. Amazing how, after all these years, I am reconsidering such a strong opinion.

Just curious, was this an Executive Outcomes- type question?

[worgeordie]

Just when you think you see the light at the end of the tunnel,

its the Tax man with a torch.

regards Worgeordie

[arjunadawn]

 

Surely if the inheritor has no income or substantial savings they should be exempt.
You could even argue they didn't expect or want to have the land so why should they have to pay, even for something that came from a private individual and not state (i.e. publicly funded) source.
 
Less taxes for everyone will make any economy flourish, taxes are stolen, 'mis-allocated', abused, lost and wasted, and even worse, they are used to make government bigger.
 
What does government do to improve economies?
 
Answers on a postcard please!
 
 
 

There's something inherently wrong with taxing inheritance as income, when clearly it stretches the historical definition of income derived from labor- as exchange. Taxing the person rather than the actual money is dark. Monies are generally taxed as income, when a consequence of exchange. What's left should be the fruit of that labor/service to be otherwise moved around as deemed fit by the earner, in perpetuity. If society states dividend earned by then selling that fruit is also income, and taxed, ok. But mommies and daddies passing the same fruit on to children should not be taxed; this is not a sale. There's no profit on the principle. This is taxing the principle once again via the false premise that a taxable exchange took place. To "redistribute" wealth in this manner is morally bankrupt. If a society has redistributive wealth policies, ok (i guess. Like it or leave); but fracturing the continuity that binds one generation to the next by taxing their fruit again is evil, anywhere! The continuity and steadfast confidence that the product of personal industry can remain free once tithed to the taxman is a core glue that binds a people to their land, their ancestors, and their nation. Inheritance taxes are a perverted political philosophy, not a functional, practical tool of the coffers.
 

 
Inheritance tax (death duty) is not an income tax. A tax certainly, but not income. There are plus and minus arguments about this. Personally I think anything above a middle level inheritance should be taxed. It relieves the need for other taxes and prevents agglomeration of capital over generations (feudal Europe, anyone). Sorry to the TEA party type people out there.
Just for interest, does anyone know of a national defence that is run by a private company?
 

I've now considered both the logic and necessity of your comments regarding inheritance tax. Evil is evil at all times and all places. If you don't want wealth to collect in the hands of the industrious and their offspring change the nature of government to prevent or change nations. Mixing inherently redistributive socialist taxation within the confines of non socialist nations, under the color of redistribution, is wrong and results in a neo socialist post democratic government. It's oppressive and a similar rebuke would come from kindergarten children. Using apples and candy to reflect the earned and the taxed, even children would know they were being robbed if you later took more candy again! But adults cloak evil in liberal politics and rationales.

[wiki12]

 

Surely if the inheritor has no income or substantial savings they should be exempt.

You could even argue they didn't expect or want to have the land so why should they have to pay, even for something that came from a private individual and not state (i.e. publicly funded) source.

 

Less taxes for everyone will make any economy flourish, taxes are stolen, 'mis-allocated', abused, lost and wasted, and even worse, they are used to make government bigger.

 

What does government do to improve economies?

 

Answers on a postcard please!

 

 

 

 

- provide roads and infrastructure

- provides for a legal system to solve disputes (business)

- enters into treaties with other states for better trade

- healthcare (without good healthcare you have a bad populace)

- provides schooling

 

Taxes are never fun but necessary, and inheritance tax is normal if you don't want an inheritance or cant pay for it don't accept it.

 

Though I am normally against inheritance tax as i feel its double taxing, in Thailand with its rich that pay little tax its a real viable option if they have a 5 million threshold or so. 

 

 

 

 

You've made me think a bit here Robblok, my head is hurting!

 

Roads, private companies can built them and charge users as they use them, that would reduce tax, just pay a fee be it by mile or however.

 

Legal systems are made by lawyers, 99% of politicans are lawyers, they can look after this side of things granted. Of course we don't want a Group 4 or rococop (OCP) scenario where private companies own the police.

 

Trade agreements, if government didn't tax imports/exports this would be unneccesary.

 

Healthcare, even the Swiss (no offence to them!) are all private, the UK NHS is full of managers instead of doctors and nurses, let people decide what policy they want to buy, hospitals would be more efficient this way.

 

Schools/education is important, what's wrong with apprenticeships? Most degrees these days are not used for all their capabilities, industry can certainly contribute towards the cost of some forms of education if they stand to benefit.

 

I'll say it again, tax goes to the government and not too the poor. Cut taxes, let business grow, there are more jobs, more money in circulation and everyone benefits.

 

Inheritence tax is another tax on a property that was bought and paid for with earnings (toil and sweat) which were taxed at the time, how is it fair to tax it again?

 

How about after next christmas everyone has to pay the tax man for the gifts someone else gave them?

 

 

 

Edited August 5, 2014 by wiki12

[mariner16]

Personally I have always had some sympathy for the theory that humans enter this world as babies with no assets and entirely dependent, and with a normal lifespan should leave again with no assets and again entirely dependent, the state having taken on the role once taken by  "family" and spent the first 20/25 years nurturing and educating a productive member of society and the last 20/25 years using that persons accrued wealth to fund a gradually declining and dignified end to life.

 

However this argument fails to take account of life spans cut short early (with dependents left with no support), or human nature which mean some people will just refuse to become productive members of society, and of course forces populist governments to enact social safety nets which in turn must be funded by taxation.

 

The poster above who spoke of New Zealand's 1980's Labour government, the Finance Minster mentioned was a proponent of cradle to grave government intervention and "come into the world with nothing, leave with nothing" thinking

[Gulfsailor]

 

Surely if the inheritor has no income or substantial savings they should be exempt.
You could even argue they didn't expect or want to have the land so why should they have to pay, even for something that came from a private individual and not state (i.e. publicly funded) source.
 
Less taxes for everyone will make any economy flourish, taxes are stolen, 'mis-allocated', abused, lost and wasted, and even worse, they are used to make government bigger.
 
What does government do to improve economies?
 
Answers on a postcard please!
 
 
 

 
- provide roads and infrastructure
- provides for a legal system to solve disputes (business)
- enters into treaties with other states for better trade
- healthcare (without good healthcare you have a bad populace)
- provides schooling
 
Taxes are never fun but necessary, and inheritance tax is normal if you don't want an inheritance or cant pay for it don't accept it.
 
Though I am normally against inheritance tax as i feel its double taxing, in Thailand with its rich that pay little tax its a real viable option if they have a 5 million threshold or so. 
 
 
 
 
You've made me think a bit here Robblok, my head is hurting!
 
Roads, private companies can built them and charge users as they use them, that would reduce tax, just pay a fee be it by mile or however.
 
Legal systems are made by lawyers, 99% of politicans are lawyers, they can look after this side of things granted. Of course we don't want a Group 4 or rococop (OCP) scenario where private companies own the police.
 
Trade agreements, if government didn't tax imports/exports this would be unneccesary.
 
Healthcare, even the Swiss (no offence to them!) are all private, the UK NHS is full of managers instead of doctors and nurses, let people decide what policy they want to buy, hospitals would be more efficient this way.
 
Schools/education is important, what's wrong with apprenticeships? Most degrees these days are not used for all their capabilities, industry can certainly contribute towards the cost of some forms of education if they stand to benefit.
 
I'll say it again, tax goes to the government and not too the poor. Cut taxes, let business grow, there are more jobs, more money in circulation and everyone benefits.
 
Inheritence tax is another tax on a property that was bought and paid for with earnings (toil and sweat) which were taxed at the time, how is it fair to tax it again?
 
How about after next christmas everyone has to pay the tax man for the gifts someone else gave them?
 
 

 

Please read this article;
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9

Strong evidence that, in regards to the USA where the 'low tax = economic growth' belief is very prevalent, this is factually incorrect.

Lower taxes only lead to higher inequality.

[Thai at Heart]

Evidently the Thais have given up trying to tax personal income and instead are focussing on assets and consumption.  

 

I mean when you pay 300% on a bottle of wine and 250% on an imported car, what is this other than a consumption tax.  They have obviously worked out that the tax collection system is so corrupt when it comes to personal income that they can't be bothered to even try to get more that way.  So bring it on.  Land tax followed by inheritance tax.  

 

All fair and above board to me as long as it is set reasonably.

[AGareth2]

The question is where will the monies raised go?

[Pib]

 

Just another tax to increase govt revenue.

 

and thus to reduce their need to borrow, to fund infrastructure-improvements or rice-scams, or whatever.

 

Personally I think that government-spending should be fully-funded, with only a little smoothing from year-to-year, or people get used to an unrealistic/unsustainable level of spending.

 

Not that Thailand is yet nearly as bad as many Western countries, when it comes to the overall-level of government-debt.
 

 

Of course...taxes are great.  All new taxes go to benefit the country/people...make things so much better.  Many more taxes are needed.   As I said, just another tax.

[belg]

this will make rich people really not happy ... but hey, as they are only the 1% of the population ...

 

in the west, you can call it a robbery, up to 50% goes to the tax man ... money your parents saved up all their lives, taxes already paid many times over .... disguesting

 

but you get something in return overthere, don't you ?

 

 

[wiki12]

Off topic a tad, but tax related.

My old man gets a pension from the army (22yrs service) and one from the cops (20yrs) and probaby a bog-standard government pension. I don't know how much it is but I bet there's 2 or 3 minimum wage earners working just to pay his retirement fund.

Cut taxes and make people look after themselves instead, why should others have to pay for his (and others in this way) I'm sure these pensions won't be around much longer though as the financial crisis is set to worsen, watch the taxes go up though!