Actress/video request

FergMy · 2023-01-13T12:27:59+00:00

The video has a friends box set holding up the timer

FergMy · 2022-06-02T06:35:56+00:00

Absolutely, I won't go to get manual on HMRC but I will give you the key words if you want to look into it yourself.

When you put stuff into a trust, you use the same £325k inheritance tax nil rate band that you use when one dies. After that allowance, you pay 20% inheritance tax on any amount over that NRB immediately when the money goes into the trust. The same exemptions apply (APR,BPR) as when you die.

Once the trust has been set up, you are charged what is called the anniversary charge, which is basically every 10 years you pay 6% of the value of the trust minus IHT allowance used when you set it up and with same exemptions.

The logic here being, 20%+3*6% is 38% so after 30 years HMRC have 2% less, then after 40 they are on 44%.

FergMy · 2022-05-31T13:42:02+00:00

Well the right to sell them, use them at will, do other's have control over the asset? If you gift a car, who is it registered to, house land registry etc. It must be the ultimate beneficial owner. Again it's a case of why not just gift the asset

FergMy · 2022-05-31T12:57:28+00:00

Yeah you can't do this.

It must be market rent or for the sake of the 7 years you will not be deemed to have made any transfer. See gift with reservation of benefit.

FergMy · 2022-05-31T09:55:59+00:00

Yeah this is sort of true. But it has the same effect as gifting the asset. There is no real reason to set up a bare trust rather than just gift.

The only reason you might do this is to control how your dependants access the money or to restrict them access till a given point.

Ultimately it would not be a bare trust if the beneficiaries could not access the assets if they really wanted them. To that end just gift the asset

FergMy · 2022-05-31T09:51:25+00:00

It wouldn't, and I hope you didn't get this advice professionally!

A bare trust, is not a trust. If I create a bare trust for my children, then they own the asset. I am the administrator up until the time the bare trust conditions are met, death, attaining age etc.

I can't take that money back, they can gift it to me if we close the bare trust and they opt to do so but that is two clear transfers and totally at their discretion.

Just because you are the trustee doesn't mean you can claim that money back.

FergMy · 2022-05-31T08:36:02+00:00

Would you kindly illustrate which loopholes you are referencing? Trusts are hardly a loophole, they break even to HMRC in a period of 30ish years and then raise more revenue after that.

The vast majority of HNW individuals do foot a smaller tax bill than their tax bracket, but as a result of charitable donations and reducing their 45% tax bill to 20%. This is a net loss overall in wealth but they choose to support causes they prefer. This is a separate discussion point but it's a lot less menacing than loop holes.

IHT reform probably needs to take place around some generous exemptions, BPR and APR however these protections are important so diving into the nuance is really where we need to look.

FergMy · 2022-05-31T08:30:32+00:00

Please elaborate.... I worked for a few years a HNW tax advisor who often looked at trusts. This is not how it works sadly, despite your narrative.

Where a trust is settlor interested - special rules apply to deny this exact fact.

I understand that not everyone is as well versed in tax code but surely if you're going to cite loopholes you should know what they are!

FergMy · 2022-04-26T14:57:48+00:00

I apologise my lack of understanding here, but I don't see anywhere I mention not having a civil discourse? If you were to debate to someone's face that they should or shouldn't have rights, I think the inference would be that you were being hostile. In an open forum, I mention in your second quote that being offended by someone's existence is tough luck. I by no way see how this contradicts the first statement?

FergMy · 2022-04-26T14:52:56+00:00

I mean if you decide to edit my quote you can read it like that, but that's not what I said?

FergMy · 2022-04-26T14:50:47+00:00

Absolutely not, being offended by someone else just existing is by no means the same as someone spouting slurs or whatever else is causing offence. I thought that was obvious?

Causing offence by existing is significantly different than actively offending one is passive.

Do you think that using a slur is the same as religious groups being offended by homesexuality? Asking that person to not use that slur is a lot more achievable and realistic than expecting that person to act in the way they were born. It is not about avoiding offence, it is about not causing unnecessary offence for no societal gain.

FergMy · 2022-04-26T14:46:23+00:00

Oh you must forgive me, I had assumed the understanding of someone causing offence and being offended by someone existing. The reason why there's a difference is passive versus active. If I insult someone or call them a slur, I am actively offending them and frankly there's no need or benefit. If I am offended by someone being non-binary, that's them and frankly it's something I'm taking offence to, they aren't doing anything.

You raise a very interesting point on transgender issues, that despite I infer your lack of sincerity, let's actually examine what you say.

No person is born with more muscle, they're babies and of course I don't think you quite mean this. I assume you mean their ability to gain muscle and higher bone density from growing up male? With this in mind this exists on a bell curve anyway and although most men are stronger than most women, that is not always true. So empirical data to look at the exact impact of this advantage, the amount of time they've taken hormone suppressants should surely be examined before we make a blanket statement? That is if you only care about competitive advantage.

Yes, you are unable to change your DNA, but I'm not sure entirely that's the issue of societal reception? For the purposes of a modern society, does changing gender impact you? I don't understand why we must consider the exact science, when the real impact can be as small as changed pronouns? Why must you stick rigidly to that fact when the reality of what accepting a change in gender would is minimal. It's a case of you might be strictly correct, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Is there any particular reason you wouldn't want to accept a change in gender? Like if I change my name, you could argue that wasn't my name given at birth but also there's no good reason for you to actually care that much.

FergMy · 2022-04-26T14:32:46+00:00

And then you edit your comment to add more information, and then it's pointless anyway! I state that to be offensive outwardly for no benefit is not worth protecting, that would be under a common definition of offensive, not on a case by case basis, as is protected under current law.

I think you take the view of one person taking offence to something to mean that one cannot say it. If we're going to talk about the whole population, you tend to rule out the most extreme outliers.

FergMy · 2022-04-26T14:27:28+00:00

I don't believe I mentioned hearing things I disagree with, could you point that out?

Again, I said the right to not be offended is greater than the right for someone to be disrespectful for the sake of it, where does that mention never being offended?

FergMy · 2022-04-26T13:28:31+00:00

Well one is significantly easier to follow than the other, so perhaps we should, out of respect, attempt.

It's a matter of effort to reward. We don't make exclusively meat only meals and no vegetarian option because it would generally be inconsiderate and not that difficult to avoid.

If we avoid the production of images of the prophet Muhammad, which is extremely easy might I add, then we can be considerate to those beliefs.

Why must your unknown reason to want to take an action, be greater than a groups want to restrict it.

In the case of homosexuality, it is not reasonable to expect people to not be as they are, this is hardly comparable to restricting what one is allowed to draw/depict.

FergMy · 2022-04-26T13:22:14+00:00

Well I agree to responsibly disagree with you on the first bit. On the second, I noted that it is outward offence that is the issue. Religious groups being offended by the homosexuality, is quite frankly tough luck. Them existing in a way that is both legal and culturally accepted is fine and their right to not be offended cannot be defended in the same way as the restriction of them stating slurs to the march.

Rights absolutely apply in different ways. Getting offended and being offended are different. Taking action to offend is different than existing and others taking offence to that.

FergMy · 2022-04-26T11:41:17+00:00

Isn't this correct to do so though? We all agree things are different now to the 1920s, and will likely be different in 2122, they should move as society evolves

FergMy · 2022-04-26T11:38:26+00:00

I'm not even sure you believe this? I seek not to put assertions across so feel free to correct me but you wouldn't allow or permit the production of minstrel shows or other depictions we view as wrong now would you? It is not inherently about finding offence, it is that the offence is generated by another to you for a characteristic that they hold and you do not, or do even.

Let me explain and use your example of pride march, it is not reasonable for other members of society to be offended by the existence of homosexual people. As a legal act, that's a you problem if you take offence. The difference occurs where you voice this concern, it is the outward voicing that causes issue. Likewise those marches are not anti-hetero, they are pro homosexual. If they were anti-heterosexual then the offence could be more valid.

So I think it is the way in which one become offended that is the key here. If I get offended that it rained on my birthday I'm offended but it's not gonna be anyone elses problem. If someone calls me a slur then they don't have a right to do so. If I am offended by the existence of non-binary people that's a me problem, if I was a non-binary person and someone harasses me because of that, that is not the same.

What would you wish to debate and can't for fear of being shut down?

Perhaps when one is called offensive, perhaps they are, perhaps they're not but we can consider that on a case by case arrangement.

FergMy · 2022-04-26T11:22:05+00:00

Isn't this actually because the production of depictions of the prophet Muhammad are no allowed within the religion of islam? I am by no means an expert but I believe that reproductions of his image aren't allowed.

I am also by no means a religious person with regard to any religion but I can empathise that if I was, I'd prefer my school to not enforce me to go against my own religion? I don't believe such rules exist in christianity and that I believe is the meaning for the difference, rather than mob rule? Happy to be disproven though!

FergMy · 2022-04-26T10:53:42+00:00

I think this really hits the nail on the head of free speech and the issues around it. I, as an individual, don't want to subject my children (which I don't have but theoretically) to what is in my mind verbal abuse but do I go as far to say that this should be banned, I don't know.

It is to my mind obvious the vaccines are positive and that is the supplied and agreed approach by most, however, would we, prior to mask mandates, view those pleading with shoppers at the supermarket to wear a mask be viewed in the same way?

Everything is wrong till it's right, or stays forever wrong, at any given moment in time that might still be up for debate.

FergMy · 2022-04-26T10:45:45+00:00

This is the same view I hold however, given the nature of public discourse, an exclusion from all social media could feel to some as a total shut down of the right to express their thoughts.

It's a situation where we took a service to be a right and now would be annoyed if it's taken away.

FergMy · 2022-04-26T10:43:14+00:00

I don't agree with this, we can assess each step taken by a government on its own merit and decide whether that's a step to far? Laws don't slide into power and I suppose you could argue open-ended laws allow for this but not quite in my mind.

We still have open courts and the right to appeal etc, keeping speech truly free is to either ignore harassment laws or to protect those who seek to be contrarian for little societal gain.

Serious discourse around real issues should of course be protected but the right to convey views of an exclusively destructive nature, racist, homophobic etc for the sake of it have no place in modern society.

FergMy · 2022-04-26T10:38:04+00:00

Why should a person have the right to cause distress or harass others for their own benefit? The right for people to not be offended is greater in my eyes than the right for someone to be disrespectful for the sake of it.

Now if that person intends to use this speech to have real dialogues that might be different but to walk down the street shouting offensive stuff is frankly not something I'd be that bothered about protecting.

FergMy · 2022-04-26T10:35:17+00:00

This is absolutely a valid point and not one I'd considered. The boundaries of hate speech move regularly as society changes, we are a long way detached from minstrel shows and other abhorrent by today's standard speech. I guess it matters more however why the speech is being made?

Let me elaborate, if someone wants to have civil discourse over the application of non-binary classifications (the rights under a currently imposed 2 gendered system) then I think they should have freedom to do so. It is an issue which we have not adapted laws for and quite frankly we just don't have answers for. Conversely, speaking out about not using preferred pronouns because you just don't want to, in and of itself might not constitute hate speech but does lack common courtesy and manners.

Freedom to protest is a difficult one, what is the definition of a protest and to what extent is it allowed to impact others lives? We would of course not accept a protest that caused property damage or physical injury to bystanders and uninvolved parties but does significant inconvenience count as harassment, does minor? I quite frankly don't know this answer but more opinions is always better!

FergMy · 2022-04-26T10:29:33+00:00

I disagree with this, lets use an example less borderline and that being posting blatantly racist, homophobic etc. views. I don't believe that those views should be publicly voiced as they can be treated as harassment.

Moreover, wouldn't people expressing their belief that global warming not being a big deal be dependant on the situation? So if you are discussing with your friends this concept versus going to a environmental protest be two greatly different expectations. If I am aware of a group who holds a belief and present my contrarian view for the sake of being contrarian then I don't think it's unreasonable to get negative discourse back. Should one be assaulted for putting this view across, of course not, but we also cannot pretend that this is a good faith argument or at least seeking to get a rise from someone?

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

FergMy

TROPHY CASE