Inheritance Tax

Davidson2k9

I'll admit I don't know much about polictics and reasons behind some laws etc. but why on earth is there an inheritance tax and why is the government allowed to take a cut from what you have left when you die?

What gives them the right to take money from someone who paid tax all their life. It's the deceased person's money that they earned, the government deserves NONE of it. It's frustrating some of the things the government get away with like this. My grandmother's brother died and she was entitled to 3/8 of everything which i think turned out to be €27,000 but after the government took whatever they were "entitled to", she was left with €5100 :mad:

Now there may be a simple explanation and I'll look silly but I just don't get it. Pay tax all your life on what you earn, save what you have left, die, pay tax on what you have left when you die.

P. Breathnach

There is no way that Capital Acquisitions Tax (the tax applied to inheritances) would amount to as much as you describe. An amount of €27k passing from one sibling to another would be exempt.

I am not persuaded that levying tax on inheritances is bad.

Denerick

Its original intent was to improve equality and to prevent the rise of a new aristocracy.

Imagine Bill Gates has a son who is lazy, feckless, useless, and never worked a day in his life. Why should he be entitled to 40 billion dollars upon the death of his father?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

because his father earned that money and decided in his will where it should go after his death?

Lockstep

Davidson2k9 wrote: »

My grandmother's brother died and she was entitled to 3/8 of everything which i think turned out to be €27,000 but after the government took whatever they were "entitled to", she was left with €5100 :mad:

I must admit to being very sceptical about this.

P. Breathnach

Lockstep wrote: »

I must admit to being very sceptical about this.

I don't doubt OP's sincerity. I suspect that the reason why the inheritance turned out to be so much smaller than expected was the cost of executorship.

Mike 1972

Ive always been puzzled by this sense of entitlement people have to an unearned untaxed windfall.

I would move to a marginal based (like income tax) rather than threshold based system with extra (sliding) allowances for people under 24 inheriting from parents and exemptions for legacies to charity but apart from that Ive no problem with the principle of Inheritance tax (if anything Id increase it)

Davidson2k9 wrote: »

I'll admit I don't know much about polictics and reasons behind some laws etc. but why on earth is there an inheritance tax and why is the government allowed to take a cut from what you have left when you die?

What gives them the right to take money from someone who paid tax all their life. It's the deceased person's money that they earned, the government deserves NONE of it.

Having paid my income tax what right has the government to make me pay VAT or Excise Duty or Import tarrifs or road tax or service charges or stamp duty or...........................

Zombrex

Davidson2k9 wrote: »

Now there may be a simple explanation and I'll look silly but I just don't get it. Pay tax all your life on what you earn, save what you have left, die, pay tax on what you have left when you die.

Tax always works like that.

I make lots of money and decide to pay you for cleaning my coin collection. You pay tax on that money. You pay tax on that money even if though I earned it.

I make lots of money and decide to pay my son for cleaning my coin collection. He pays tax on that money. He pays tax on that money even though I earned it and he is my son.

I make lots of money and decide to just give my son a gift of money, he doesn't have to do anything for it. He pays tax on that money. He pays tax on that money even though I earned it.

Its all basically the same thing. You always pay tax on money you get, whether it is a gift, a salary or the interest you make in the bank.

Otherwise your employer would just gift you money, and you would pay no tax on it.

There isn't really any reason why a gift from your parents would be treated any differently.

Victor

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I would move to a marginal based (like income tax) rather than threshold based system with extra (sliding) allowances for people under 24 inheriting from parents and exemptions for legacies to charity but apart from that Ive no problem with the principle of Inheritance tax (if anything Id increase it)

From parent to child, the first €332,084 is tax free and then CAT is at a lower rate than income tax.

www.taxireland.ie/documents/general/A_Guide_to_CAT.pdf


http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/capital_taxes/capital_acquisitions_tax.html

Tax rate

Capital Acquisition Tax is charged at 25% in respect of gifts or inheritances made from midnight on 7 April 2009. (The rate was formerly 22% in 2009 and 20% in 2008.) This only applies to amounts over the group threshold. For example, if you have received gifts from your parents with a taxable value of €550,000, you only pay tax on the amount over the appropriate group threshold (Group A threshold: €332,084). So €217,916 is taxed at 25%.

Reliefs

Business Relief
Tax relief applies to gifts and inheritances of business property and reduces the taxable value of the property by 90%. More information on business relief can be found in Revenue leaflet CAT 4.

Agricultural Relief
Tax relief applies to gifts and inheritances of agricultural property and reduces the market value of the property by 90% for the purposes of Capital Acquisitions Tax. More information on agricultural relief can be found in Revenue leaflet CAT 5.

Dwelling-house exemption

A gift or inheritance of a house which has been your main residence may be exempt from Capital Acquisitions Tax if you do not own or have an interest in any other house.

...

SupaNova

Its original intent was to improve equality and to prevent the rise of a new aristocracy.

Imagine Bill Gates has a son who is lazy, feckless, useless, and never worked a day in his life. Why should he be entitled to 40 billion dollars upon the death of his father?

Most people work hard in life is not for themselves money or greed, it is to provide for their family and give them the best situation possible. The idea that the state is there to provide some moral equality by taking some of your life's work in case you have a lazy good for nothing son is a repulsive argument.

Even if Bill Gates has a lazy feckless son that he leaves everything to, he will probably blow most of Bills money and it will re enter the economy.

edwinkane

If there is one lesson which should be learned from the last FF Government, it is that governments spend our money much less efficiently than we do ourselves. Not only that, but governments spend our money on things which we would never spend it on.

As a matter of principle, the objective of any government should be to recognise this, and should have a goal of taxing us less and less, and getting better and better value for our money.

Anyone who disputes this should just reflect on how much we spent on cosmetics for Mr Bertie Ahern.

P. Breathnach

edwinkane wrote: »

If there is one lesson which should be learned from the last FF Government, it is that governments spend our money much less efficiently than we do ourselves....

The government didn't buy all those overvalued houses and apartments. It was "ourselves" that inflated the bubble.

Bruthal

Wicknight wrote: »

There isn't really any reason why a gift from your parents would be treated any differently.

Well it is treated differently.

edwinkane

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The government didn't buy all those overvalued houses and apartments. It was "ourselves" that inflated the bubble.

Eh, yes. And the news at one is usually on at one o'clock. I was talking about the government and tax, you seem to be talking about something else! thats called a non sequitur.

P. Breathnach

edwinkane wrote: »

Eh, yes. And the news at one is usually on at one o'clock. I was talking about the government and tax, you seem to be talking about something else! thats called a non sequitur.

You were not talking about government and tax: you were talking about spending, and claiming that "we" make more efficient spending decisions than does the government.

It is dishonest to disclaim what you said; it's silly to do so when what you said can be found on the very page where you put your disclaimer.

RandomName2

Denerick wrote: »

Its original intent was to improve equality and to prevent the rise of a new aristocracy.

Imagine Bill Gates has a son who is lazy, feckless, useless, and never worked a day in his life. Why should he be entitled to 40 billion dollars upon the death of his father?

Because of the work of his father.

It is not because capitalism believes in honouring those who are feckless - it is because it believes in not stealing from people who have earned it. By saying that Bill Gates is not allowed to give more than say 60% (... I think that's how it would be in the UK) of his capital to his son upon his death, merely on the rationale of increasing public revenue, inherently smacks of socialism and state financial unaccountability. :pac:

Peregrinus

His father's dead. His father doesn't exist any more. Non-existent dead people have no rights. Taking property which used to belong to someone who has died is not "stealing" from that person; that person, being dead, cannot own anything and so cannot be the victim of theft.

Property is a social construct. Whether, and to what extent, you get to control what happens to your former property after you no longer own it, having died, is a societal decision. The notion that you can leave it to whoever you want by your will is actually quite a recent one.

There may be lots of good arguments as to why we should let people leave their property to whoever they want, and not tax it. But moralistic arguments which treat not allowing them to do so as "stealing" are not among them.

edwinkane

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You were not talking about government and tax: you were talking about spending, and claiming that "we" make more efficient spending decisions than does the government.

It is dishonest to disclaim what you said; it's silly to do so when what you said can be found on the very page where you put your disclaimer.

Most people understand that the government taxes citizens to raise revenue, which it then spends. You appear to be arguing that governments spend money more effectively than individuals. If that is, in fact your argument, as it's hard t believe anyone holds that view. Is that your argument?

Peregrinus

edwinkane wrote: »

Most people understand that the government taxes citizens to raise revenue, which it then spends. You appear to be arguing that governments spend money more effectively than individuals. If that is, in fact your argument, as it's hard t believe anyone holds that view. Is that your argument?

We set up governments precisely because there are some things governments do more effectively than individuals. And, if those things cost money - and they generally do - then it's not impossible that the government will spend money on those things more effectively than individuals do. Try funding national defence on your own and see how efficiently you can do it. Or compare the efficiency of US spending on healthcare with the efficiency of European spendign on healthcare.

P. Breathnach was not saying that people spend money more effectively than governments; he was arguing with your claim that "governments spend our money much less efficiently than we do ourselves". To succeed in this he doesn't have to show that private expediture is more efficient than public; just that the efficience of expenditure is not necessarily determined by whether it is private or public.

dissed doc

Denerick wrote: »

Its original intent was to improve equality and to prevent the rise of a new aristocracy.

Imagine Bill Gates has a son who is lazy, feckless, useless, and never worked a day in his life. Why should he be entitled to 40 billion dollars upon the death of his father?

It's not his son is entitled to have, it's Bill Gates who is entitled to give. A crucial begrudger difference.

edwinkane

Peregrinus wrote: »

We set up governments precisely because there are some things governments do more effectively than individuals. And, if those things cost money - and they generally do - then it's not impossible that the government will spend money on those things more effectively than individuals do. Try funding national defence on your own and see how efficiently you can do it. Or compare the efficiency of US spending on healthcare with the efficiency of European spendign on healthcare.

That a government is better place to organise an army is not in dispute. But that it is, is not to say it funds the army effectively or efficiently.

For example, in the area you have chosen , the size of the Irish army is +- 8500. The UK army is estimated at 200 000 reguar troops and 40 000 volunteer troops. I wonder do you think it good value that the Irish government pays the head of the Irish defence forces more in salary than his UK equivalent?

The amount of money spent on healthcare is another good example of governments throwing (our) money at a problem in the hope that if they keep throwing (sorry, their word is "investing") money at a problem that might solve the problem. I don't know any sane person who would do that with their own money, but that governments have been doing that for years, in many areas, is the reason why Ireland has a budget deficit now of +-€20 billion per annum.

Peregrinus

dissed doc wrote: »

It's not his son is entitled to have, it's Bill Gates who is entitled to give. A crucial begrudger difference.

Bill can give his money away while he's alive (as, indeed, he is doing). Nobody had disputed that in this thread.

The question is whether Bill's son has a right to (what's left of) Bill's money when Bill is dead. This is not a matter of Bill's rights, since at this point Bill no longer exists, and has no rights. If we insist on analysing it as a matter of rights, then we must consider it a matter of Bill's son's rights.

Peregrinus

edwinkane wrote: »

That a government is better place to organise an army is not in dispute. But that it is, is not to say it funds the army effectively or efficiently.

For example, in the area you have chosen , the size of the Irish army is +- 8500. The UK army is estimated at 200 000 reguar troops and 40 000 volunteer troops. I wonder do you think it good value that the Irish government pays the head of the Irish defence forces more in salary than his UK equivalent?

Hold on a minute. The UK pays its Chief of Staff less than Ireland does, and this is supposed to show that public expenditure is less efficient than private expenditure?

Look, I don't want to talk to you as though you were a child, but you do realise, don't you, that you cannot draw any conclusions about the efficiency of private expenditure by comparing two different public expenditures?

If you want to compare chief executive expenditures, then look at what the banks have paid their CEOs, compare it with what the CEOs of public sector organisations are paid, and then amuse us all hugely by using the results to prove the relative efficiency of private sector expenditure decisions.

edwinkane wrote: »

The amount of money spent on healthcare is another good example of governments throwing (our) money at a problem in the hope that if they keep throwing (sorry, their word is "investing") money at a problem that might solve the problem. I don't know any sane person who would do that with their own money, but that governments have been doing that for years is the reason why Ireland has a budget deficit now of +-€20 billion.

If you don't know, that's because you choose not to know. Open your eyes. In the US they spend hugely more on health than in Ireland (or pretty well anywhere, in fact), for a much lousier outcome. The American system, where private expenditure is dominant, produces hugely less efficient outcomes than any of the European systems, where public expenditure is dominant. Nobody sane denies this. Healthcare is one the areas where we have conducted a large-scale, long-term experiment to show that, yes, there are areas - important areas - where government expenditure tends to be more efficient than private expenditure.

edwinkane

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hold on a minute. The UK pays its Chief of Staff less than Ireland does, and this is supposed to show that public expenditure is less efficient than private expenditure?

As a comparison, it certainly suggest that the irish head of the defence forces might be paid too much.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Look, I don't want to talk to you as though you were a child, but you do realise, don't you, that you cannot draw any conclusions about the efficiency of private expenditure by comparing two different public expenditures?

.

If you think we can't make a judgment that the Irish head of the defense forces might be paid too much, then of course it's up to each of us to make that judgment. Certainly, neither you or I can decided that for someone else.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you want to compare chief executive expenditures, then look at what the banks have paid their CEOs, compare it with what the CEOs of public sector organisations are paid, and then amuse us all hugely by using the results to prove the relative efficiency of private sector expenditure decisions.

I am able to distinguish between what a private organisation pays its staff, and what our government does with our money. Are you?

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you don't know, that's because you choose not to know. Open your eyes. In the US they spend hugely more on health than in Ireland (or pretty well anywhere, in fact), for a much lousier outcome. The American system, where private expenditure is dominant, produces hugely less efficient outcomes than any of the European systems, where public expenditure is dominant. Nobody sane denies this. Healthcare is one the areas where we have conducted a large-scale, long-term experiment to show that, yes, there are areas - important areas - where government expenditure tends to be more efficient than private expenditure.

I don't know what the US healthcare system has to do with the Irish government throwing more and more money into the Irish healthcare system in the hope it will improve it. Consequently we have probably the highest paid doctors and nurses in the world, where Ireland pays its public consultant doctors almost €250 000 per year for a 30 hour week.

Again, I am able to make a judgment that that is excessive and an unnecessarily high amount of money, both in real terms and by comparison with public consultants elsewhere. Then I am able to conclude that our government, who "negotiated" that deal is not spending the tax it collects efficiently. You may not be able to reach that conclusion.

The one thing I do know about the quality of healthcare in the USA is that people travel from all over the world to avail of its healthcare, because they believe it's more advanced and will give a better outcome than most other healthcare systems.

in any case, if you think your government could spend your money more efficiently that you are able to organise for yourself, no one is preventing you giving all your money to your government in an attempt to spend your money more efficiently.

seamus

At a very simple level, trade is what makes the world go around. I produce something, I give it to someone else in trade for something and we both have something new.

In order to run a country, the government needs money and the most obvious way to make money is to take a piece of each transaction. Pretty much every time wealth passes from one individual to another, the government takes a cut. That's tax, that's what it does.

Inheritance is no different, it's wealth passing from one individual to another and the government takes a cut.

edwinkane

seamus wrote: »

Inheritance is no different, it's wealth passing from one individual to another and the government takes a cut.

I disagree. Inheritance tax is a tax on the savings of dead people, where tax is not liable while they are alive. Why is being dead a qualification for paying tax?

Unfortunately, in Ireland we are going to see a re-emergence of both a large black economy and tax evasion as a result of increasing taxes. ireland should be now cutting taxes to stimulate the economy, not increasing taxes and chocking the economy in these times of recession.

Peregrinus

edwinkane wrote: »

As a comparison, it certainly suggest that the irish head of the defence forces might be paid too much.

It might suggest that the head of the Irish forces is paid too much, or alternatively that the head of the British forces is paid too little. But it tells us nothing - nothing at all - about the relative efficiency of public and private expenditure.

edwinkane wrote: »

I am able to distinguish between what a private organisation pays its staff, and what our government does with our money. Are you?

Try to maintain coherence, edwinkane. Of course I can distinguish between them. If we couldn’t distinguish between them, how could we compare their relative efficiency?

edwinkane wrote: »

I don't know what the US healthcare system has to do with the Irish government throwing more and more money into the Irish healthcare system in the hope it will improve it . .

I don’t know why you thing that Irish healthcare expenditure tells us something generally true about the relative effficiency of public and private expenditure, but that US healthcare expenditure doesn’t. If you want to examine the relative efficiency of public and private expenditure, then you have to be willing to look at the efficiency of private expenditure.

edwinkane wrote: »

The one thing I do know about the quality of healthcare in the USA is that people travel from all over the world to avail of its healthcare, because they believe it's more advanced and will give a better outcome than most other healthcare systems.

Yes, it’s very good - at least for those people. It’s just not very efficient. You do understand the difference, don’t you?

If you are indifferent to efficiency, then naturally you will favour the healthcare system which produces the best outcome for you, regardless of cost. And if you have buckets of money, the US healthcare system will certainly produce a very good outcome.

But your professed concern is with efficiency. On that metric, the US healthcare system is pretty ****e. Even its good outcomes are achieved at vastly greater cost than elsewhere. The more efficient healthcare systems are largely publicly funded.

Ireland’s is not a particularly efficient healthcare system, but it should also be noted that it has a fairly large element of private funding in it. In generally, the more a healthcare system is publicly funded, the more efficient it tends to be. Of course you will find exceptions, but the overall relationship is pretty clear.

edwinkane

Peregrinus wrote: »

...Try to maintain coherence, edwinkane.

I had, wrongly, assumed we could discuss this as adults and without patronising each other.

Peregrinus wrote: »

It might suggest that the head of the Irish forces is paid too much, or alternatively that the head of the British forces is paid too little. But it tells us nothing - nothing at all - about the relative efficiency of public and private expenditure.

[

What it seems to tell us is that the UK government spends their taxpayers money more efficiently than does the Irish government, in this instance.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don’t know why you thing that Irish healthcare expenditure tells us something generally true about the relative effficiency of public and private expenditure, but that US healthcare expenditure doesn’t.

I don't think it. I simply don't know much about the american healthcare system and do know something about the UK and Irish healthcare systems.

Either way, even if you feel you can't make a judgment that, for example, paying a public consultant +-€250000 for a 30 hour week, is excessive, and an example of a government not spending taxpayers money wisely, others can make that judgment.

For comparison, it would be interesting to learn from you how much a public consultant earns in the USA, and how many hours that consultants contract expects him to work. Perhaps you don't know (I certainly don't). I do know that in the UK, France & Germany they earn very much less than €250 000 pa.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, it’s very good - at least for those people. It’s just not very efficient. You do understand the difference, don’t you?

Of course, especially as my argument is that governments spend money less efficiently than do individuals. And if I didn't I always have a dictionary handy. Maybe if you also have a dictionary you could look up "patronising" .

P. Breathnach

edwinkane wrote: »

I disagree. Inheritance tax is a tax on the savings of dead people, where tax is not liable while they are alive. Why is being dead a qualification for paying tax? ...

I have found that discussion with people whose arguments are based on a libertarian model, and who reject most social constructs except the idea of private property, is a waste of my time.

But I do have a liking for people getting things right: dead people do not pay tax. An executor might have to pay any tax that was outstanding at the time of death, as a debt of the estate. He or she is also liable to pay a small amount of probate tax which is, in effect, a court fee for proving the will; in most estates, it amounts to a few hundred euros.

There is no Inheritance Tax. There is Capital Acquisition Tax, and receipt of an inheritance is one event that can render an individual liable. The tax is charged on the person receiving wealth, and there are thresholds below which no liability arises.

There are ways to reduce the impact of CAT. One is to disperse the estate, bequeathing to each beneficiary an amount less than would incur liability (e.g. less than about €400k for a child). That reflects a societal attitude that is probably anathema to a libertarian: that it is undesirable that wealth should, over the generations, become concentrated in the hands of a relatively small proportion of our society.

Peregrinus

edwinkane wrote: »

I had, wrongly, assumed we could discuss this as adults and without patronising each other.

The person who asks, in a discussion about the relative efficiency of public and private expenditure, whether I can distinguish between public and private expenditure, is not well positioned to accuse others of being patronising.

edwinkane wrote: »

What it seems to tell us is that the UK government spends their taxpayers money more efficiently than does the Irish government, in this instance.

But since UK government expenditure and Irish government expenditure are both forms of public expenditure, this still tell us nothing at all about the efficiency of public expenditure relative to private expenditure, does it?

edwinkane wrote: »

I don't think it. I simply don't know much about the american healthcare system and do know something about the UK and Irish healthcare systems.

Either way, even if you feel you can't make a judgment that, for example, paying a public consultant +-€250000 for a 30 hour week, is excessive, and an example of a government not spending taxpayers money wisely, others can make that judgment.

For comparison, it would be interesting to learn from you how much a public consultant earns in the USA, and how many hours that consultants contract expects him to work. Perhaps you don't know (I certainly don't). I do know that in the UK, France & Germany they earn very much less than €250 000 pa.

Which, again, tells us nothing – nada, zero, faic, rien – about the relative efficiencies of public and private expenditures, because you rigorously exclude from your comparisons any consideration of private expenditures. It’s like trying to prove something about bananas by comparing lemons with oranges.

edwinkane wrote: »

Of course, especially as my argument is that governments spend money less efficiently than do individuals. And if I didn't I always have a dictionary handy. Maybe if you also have a dictionary you could look up "patronising" .

You do see the terrible irony in that paragraph, don’t you?

If you have a dictionary, maybe you could look up “private”. You keep comparing two different public expenditures, showing that one is less efficient than the other, and insisting that this tells us something about the relative efficiency of public and private expenditures. It doesn’t. It can’t. I hope you don’t consider it patronising for me to point out that none of the examples you advance do anything at all to support your claim, but I’m afraid that this is so.

If you want to show that public expenditure is less efficient than private expenditure, you need to illustrate this by comparing public expenditure with private expenditure, not with different public expenditure. Since you have raise the topic of executive pay, I’ve invited you to illustrate your thesis by reference to the executive pay in the banks, as compared with the public sector, but you seem curiously reluctant.

edwinkane

Peregrinus wrote: »

The person who asks, in a discussion about the relative efficiency of public and private expenditure, whether I can distinguish between public and private expenditure, is not well positioned to accuse others of being patronising.


.

Thats illogical. Whether or not I can spot someone else being patronising has no bearing on whether or not I can or can't be patronising myself.

Peregrinus wrote: »

T


But since UK government expenditure and Irish government expenditure are both forms of public expenditure, this still tell us nothing at all about the efficiency of public expenditure relative to private expenditure, does it?

No. it wasn't intended to. it was intended to suggest that the irish government is not efficient in this instance.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which, again, tells us nothing – nada, zero, faic, rien – about the relative efficiencies of public and private expenditures, because you rigorously exclude from your comparisons any consideration of private expenditures. It’s like trying to prove something about bananas by comparing lemons with oranges.


You do see the terrible irony in that paragraph, don’t you?

If you have a dictionary, maybe you could look up “private”. You keep comparing two different public expenditures, showing that one is less efficient than the other, and insisting that this tells us something about the relative efficiency of public and private expenditures. It doesn’t. It can’t. I hope you don’t consider it patronising for me to point out that none of the examples you advance do anything at all to support your claim, but I’m afraid that this is so.

If you want to show that public expenditure is less efficient than private expenditure, you need to illustrate this by comparing public expenditure with private expenditure, not with different public expenditure. Since you have raise the topic of executive pay, I’ve invited you to illustrate your thesis by reference to the executive pay in the banks, as compared with the public sector, but you seem curiously reluctant.

I'm afraid i have no opinion on the differences between public sector expenditure and private sector expenditure. My point was that governments are less efficient in spending money than individuals are.

P. Breathnach

edwinkane wrote: »

... My point was that governments are less efficient in spending money than individuals are.

I think people might have noticed what point you are making.

Perhaps you could adduce some evidence in support of your contention.

You seemed not to like it when I pointed to a significant set of counter-examples to your claim: all those inefficient spending decisions on housing.

Peregrinus

edwinkane wrote: »

Thats illogical. Whether or not I can spot someone else being patronising has no bearing on whether or not I can or can't be patronising myself.

No, but it does deprive your whinging about others being patronising of m much of its force.

edwinkane wrote: »

I'm afraid i have no opinion on the differences between public sector expenditure and private sector expenditure. My point was that governments are less efficient in spending money than individuals are.

Um, individual expenditure would be private expenditure, edwinkane. If you'fre going to support your point with examples, they have be examples involving expenditure by individuals. If ypu persistently produce irrelevant illustrations people will draw the obvious conclusions; that you can't find relevant illustrations which support the point you are making.

edwinkane

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, but it does deprive your whinging about others being patronising of m much of its force.


.

I mentioned before that I had hoped we could discuss this in a calm and adult manner, but it seems you are unable to do so without, firstly, being patronising and, now, hurling abuse. I know some guys get a kick out of that sort of thing on the anonymous internet, and my golden rule is to not engage with those whose way of discussing is to hurl abuse or call others names.

Peregrinus

edwinkane wrote: »

I mentioned before that I had hoped we could discuss this in a calm and adult manner, but it seems you are unable to do so without, firstly, being patronising and, now, hurling abuse. I know some guys get a kick out of that sort of thing on the anonymous internet, and my golden rule is to not engage with those whose way of discussing is to hurl abuse or call others names.

Well, you can gather up your skirts and flounce off if you like, edwinkane, but your claims of hurt feelings might attract more sympathy and have more credibility if it weren't you who had introduced the patronising tone into this conversation.

edwinkane

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, you can gather up your skirts and flounce off if you like, edwinkane, but your claims of hurt feelings might attract more sympathy and have more credibility if it weren't you who had introduced the patronising tone into this conversation.

I'm afraid you are incorrect. My feelings are not in the least hurt, as I have a golden rule to not look for offence where it is not intended, and not to take offence when it is intended.

I just have a preference for discussing things ins a calm, adult fashion, and rarely continue a conversation with someone who is unable to prevent themselves hurling abuse or name calling. Just like you have done again by not being able to restrain yourself from using pejorative language like saying "gather up your skirts and flounce off", in fact.

It's my perogative not to continue to engage with you for the reasons explained, and if you want to come back again and use pejorative language, maybe hurl more abuse, and make up what you imagine about my feelings, thats your perogative. But next time I won't be replying to it, and other members can make up their own mind.

Lockstep

Enough of this petty bitching. Leave it out.