BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[icowden]

Oh, poor things.

That only leaves them with £1.5 million to live on !

 

[Beebo]

Oh, poor things.

View attachment 13354

If you pay £1.3 million it means you have probably inherited £2.9 million after tax.

And that’s the average!

 

[First Aspect]

If you pay £1.3 million it means you have probably inherited £2.9 million after tax.

And that’s the average!

That's the average of people paying IHT.

 

[Psamathe]

Millionaire families pay more IHT than non-eligible families. Shocker!

The "shocker" is that people are paying IHT. There are a lot of (pretty easy) ways to get round or dramatically reduce liability. Takes a bit of planning and a few ways people can get caught but not too difficult where you have the wealth to have liability.

 

[Pblakeney]

The "shocker" is that people are paying IHT. There are a lot of (pretty easy) ways to get round or dramatically reduce liability. Takes a bit of planning and a few ways people can get caught but not too difficult where you have the wealth to have liability.

True.
I try to allow for stupidity but always fail to allow enough. 😉

 

[icowden]

The "shocker" is that people are paying IHT. There are a lot of (pretty easy) ways to get round or dramatically reduce liability. Takes a bit of planning and a few ways people can get caught but not too difficult where you have the wealth to have liability.

Indeed. It's the people in the gap between doing reasonably well and being wealthy. Once you are wealthy enough for a good accountant you property is owned by an offshore Trust in the Caymans. Weirdly we don't seem to be willing to go after the people wealthy enough to put their money in a Trust in the Caymans.

Some wags have suggested that the influence of Politicians who have Hedge Funds and Trust Funds in the Caymans might have had some effect on this...

 

[BoldonLad]

The "shocker" is that people are paying IHT. There are a lot of (pretty easy) ways to get round or dramatically reduce liability. Takes a bit of planning and a few ways people can get caught but not too difficult where you have the wealth to have liability.

Perhaps they have avoided as much as they can, but, still have to pay some?

It is all these enormous BBC salaries that cause all this wealth 😂

 

[Rusty Nails]

True.
I try to allow for stupidity but always fail to allow enough. 😉

Is it stupid to not avoid paying IHT?

My kids are adults and reasonably well off. We have already given them a lot of money and told them that the money and property we have left is going to ensure that my wife and I have enough to live a comfortable life, including enough to pay for one or both of us to go into a decent quality care/nursing home should we have to, which is a possibility we must consider in our late 70s.

With the allowances we have they should inherit a tax free million quid between them, or more once tax is paid, if we remain healthy enough to stay independent. They are in full agreement with our plans.

If we had no kids then why should we worry about IHT?

 

[BoldonLad]

Am I alone, on here, in finding this story about the BAFTA incident https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6edwg06n1o, rather bizarre?

I suspect the answer is "yes", but, thought I would ask anyway.

To clarify, I didn't watch the BAFTAs, I would not have known about the incident, except, it was on BBC and ITV National News.

 

[First Aspect]

Am I alone, on here, in finding this story about the BAFTA incident https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6edwg06n1o, rather bizarre?

I suspect the answer is "yes", but, thought I would ask anyway.

I think it is an exquisite example of collectively missing the point.

It is actually rather sad, because the chap who is the subject of the award winning film had to leave the room because of the condition the film was about.

The BBC has once again tripped over itself to virtue signal, by correctly allowing the unedited audio, then apologising for it.

But hey if you didn't know tourettes is stigmatized, you do now.

 

[Rusty Nails]

What I find bizarre is that people didn't expect the Tourette's sufferer to shout out inappropriate words. That's what they often do.

The problem again seems to be not that the BBC didn't apologise, but that they didn't use exactly the right words in their apology. There was also the silly error in not cutting the offending word out of the show which was aired later than it was filmed.

 

[First Aspect]

I don't know if it was right to bleep it out, was it? Pretty sure that people with that form of tourettes don't carry bleep machines around with them, and I kind of imagine that they would not want to be excluded from society.

I've been listening to some pillock from radio 1 being interviewed on r5 all afternoon, talking about safeguarding for the guy being taking him away to help him control himself.

Ffs

 

[BoldonLad]

What I find bizarre is that people didn't expect the Tourette's sufferer to shout out inappropriate words. That's what they often do.

The problem again seems to be not that the BBC didn't apologise, but that they didn't use exactly the right words in their apology. There was also the silly error in not cutting the offending word out of the show which was aired later than it was filmed.

To me, this is the point, the whole thing is about "educating" the masses about Tourette's, an apparently perfect example happens (presumably by chance), and, they edit it out?, I don't get it.

I think it is an exquisite example of collectively missing the point.

It is actually rather sad, because the chap who is the subject of the award winning film had to leave the room because of the condition the film was about.

The BBC has once again tripped over itself to virtue signal, by correctly allowing the unedited audio, then apologising for it.

But hey if you didn't know tourettes is stigmatized, you do now.

I believe we are in agreement 😊

 

[Rusty Nails]

I don't know if it was right to bleep it out, was it? Pretty sure that people with that form of tourettes don't carry bleep machines around with them, and I kind of imagine that they would not want to be excluded from society.

I've been listening to some pillock from radio 1 being interviewed on r5 all afternoon, talking about safeguarding for the guy being taking him away to help him control himself.

Ffs

If the N word offends people, especially black people then there was no need to air it. The people in the audience and on the stage heard it and that was unavoidable, and so it should have been, but broadcasting what was in effect an intrusion from the audience serves no purpose. I don't think that qualifies as excluding him from society.

Although I don't believe he should have had to leave the audience.

 

[BoldonLad]

If the N word offends people, especially black people then there was no need to air it. The people in the audience and on the stage heard it and that was unavoidable, and so it should have been, but broadcasting what was in effect an intrusion from the audience serves no purpose. I don't think that qualifies as excluding him from society.

Although I don't believe he should have had to leave the audience.

Doesn't that apply to ANY word which offends people?

Presumably, any potentially offensive word could have been uttered (that being the nature of Tourette's).