Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
My children have started leaving Dignitas brochures around the house. Should I be worried?
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
This is basically right - there are certain wheezes that can be used to protect at least some of the value of a house from the grasping mitts of the local council under very particular circumstances, but basically it's pot luck as to whether the heirs of elderly homeowners receive a life-transforming fortune or the last few grand.
It's one of the myriad ways in which dementia is oh so very cruel. Sufferers, particularly as the rot becomes more advanced, frequently linger on with no quality of life for years, AND burn almost everything they wanted to leave to their kids in the process.
Yes. And it isn't even treated as a disease, even though it clearly is one.
The NHS won't provide any care for a dementia sufferer, but if you get cancer, it is a different matter.
I know it will be expensive, but there needs to be an equitable solution instead of a lottery.
But Dementia is treated as a disease by the NHS.
If someone winds up in Social Care because of a stroke, or blindness or Schizophrenia, they also have to pay for it.
All part of a broader discussion as to the extent to which the severely ill or disabled should receive help to cope with their misfortune, and the extent to which they should be left to fend for themselves. There are, as always, no easy answers.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
About Time is the most underrated film released since 2000.
When I first got together with my now wife I watched that shit on a Friday night. The only film worse we saw together was Ps I Love You.
This seems ripe for a "Worst film you've ever seen in the cinema" series.
For me - "Triple Bogey on a Par Five Hole". Apart from being awful, when I walked - as the single viewer - into the room the ticket person asked in confidential tones ".... Are you... sure?".
Easy peasy:
The four worst, all of which were so bad I couldn't make it through to the end, were:
- The Da Vinci Code - Wimbledon - Boat Trip - Second Exotic Marigold Yawnfest
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
My children have started leaving Dignitas brochures around the house. Should I be worried?
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
So what you are saying is that…
I should wait until November before I re-mortgage rather than lock in now?
To be honest, that was my plan anyway. I think inflation has been surprisingly tenacious, but once it falls it will fall rapidly.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
Some of us were saying as much even before the BoE raised base rates which were the wrong tool to fight commodity price shocks (even if they might have been needed to defend exchange rates).
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
Handy backdrop for the PM to an election in autumn 2024....
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
My children have started leaving Dignitas brochures around the house. Should I be worried?
My children have full power of attorney over both of us and our funeral plans are in our wills
Practical measures but we do intend to try to stay around a wee while longer but we have been very blessed with a wonderful family and 5 adorable grandchildren
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
My children have started leaving Dignitas brochures around the house. Should I be worried?
My children have full power of attorney over both of us and our funeral plans are in our wills
Practical measures but we do intend to try to stay around a wee while longer but we have been very blessed with a wonderful family and 5 adorable grandchildren
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
My children have started leaving Dignitas brochures around the house. Should I be worried?
Start leaving bequest forms for the Donkey Sanctuary around the house.....
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
My children have started leaving Dignitas brochures around the house. Should I be worried?
My children have full power of attorney over both of us and our funeral plans are in our wills
Practical measures but we do intend to try to stay around a wee while longer but we have been very blessed with a wonderful family and 5 adorable grandchildren
Five adorable ones - out of how many?
Unusually maybe, but all 5 ranging from 20 years to 9 months
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
My children have started leaving Dignitas brochures around the house. Should I be worried?
When the time arrives if you are wise you will have blown all your hard earned on birds, booze and fast cars, and just squandered the rest, George Best style. Get the kids to stick you on an economy flight back to blighty and let the appropriate local authority of their choice pick up the tab. No need for Dignitas.
There was a story in the Hereford Times a while back of a man with dementia deposited outside a care home in Hereford. Herefordshire Council footed the bill whilst searching for the man's identity. After a significant number of months they traced his origins back some Midwest state. Due to exorbitant US care costs the family did just as I advised in paragraph one. In his case Herefordshire Council paid for a return ticket.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
Handy backdrop for the PM to an election in autumn 2024....
As people wonder what all that was for...
Putting up interest rates just doesn't work to control a price spike in commodities. All it does is cause pain and near-recession.
The trans activist who disrupted a talk by Prof Kathleen Stock is the daughter of a council boss who introduced a four-day working week.
Riz Possnett’s mother Liz Watts was working on a PhD thesis on the topic when South Cambridgeshire District Council last year became the first to implement a trial to cut hours while staff remain on the same pay.
So much for just being a poor he/her/they, from a poor family. Mum and dad extremely well connected people, no wonder they can afford the swimming pool and hot tub.
God, I hate these posh/upper middle class people who pretend to be soil of the earth working class plebs.
I would of thought being very pro Trans almost certainly marks you out as being more likely to be upper middle class, at least by education, than working class. Probably even more so than opposition to Brexit which is equally a view most strongly held by the upper middle classes
The only Trans person I know well is a friend of Fox jr2, and whose father is a smallholder and works in engineering too.
I think working class Trans people are like working class guys, under recognised rather than non existent.
I have no idea who the parents are of the very few trans people I know. It seems utterly irrelevant. Why would anyone want to make a point about this?
Opportunity to use the word “smallholder”.
They're dad farms about 40 acres, so a reasonable description I would think, and hence the need for a second job in engineering. I have known them since Fox Jr was in Beavers together.
HYUFD was rather implying that being Trans is a middle class affectation. I don't think it is.
Only 38% of working class C2DE voters think adults should be able to change their legal gender, compared to 42% of middle class ABC1s who think they should be able to.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
In my opinion, a long way to go before CPI is under control in the UK at least.
With regard to interest rates, a return to sensible pricing of money ie having real interest rates ie where the rate exceeds inflation would be welcome.
Damned nonsense. IHT abolition penalises the very people who work hard to earn money. Not Tory-votingf pensioners sitting on their thumbs as their houses go up in price, pampered by thge current IHT allowances.
You do realise the AVERAGE detached home in Scotland is worth £349,000 now? So over the £325k IHT threshold too.
Inheritance isn't very meritocratic though, now is it? Surely as an aspirational Tory you want everyone to go to a grammar school, work hard and make their own way in life. No legs up from the bank of mum and dad.
P S. I've had mine and spent it.
Meritocracy and the free market is ultimately a Liberal concept, inherited wealth and tradition is largely a Tory key principle. The 2 just combined to form today's Conservative Party to keep out Labour socialism
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
It seems the increases, which by the way are low anyway, are having the effect of house price reductions which many want but at the same time is fracturing the buy to let market putting pressure on rents, just when that is a great worry for many
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
Yep, they've reloaded the gun. No need to use the bullets now.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
Boris of course correctly wanted to cap residential care costs at £86k max payment per estate, for the 25% who will need social care for dementia
The trans activist who disrupted a talk by Prof Kathleen Stock is the daughter of a council boss who introduced a four-day working week.
Riz Possnett’s mother Liz Watts was working on a PhD thesis on the topic when South Cambridgeshire District Council last year became the first to implement a trial to cut hours while staff remain on the same pay.
So much for just being a poor he/her/they, from a poor family. Mum and dad extremely well connected people, no wonder they can afford the swimming pool and hot tub.
God, I hate these posh/upper middle class people who pretend to be soil of the earth working class plebs.
I would of thought being very pro Trans almost certainly marks you out as being more likely to be upper middle class, at least by education, than working class. Probably even more so than opposition to Brexit which is equally a view most strongly held by the upper middle classes
The only Trans person I know well is a friend of Fox jr2, and whose father is a smallholder and works in engineering too.
I think working class Trans people are like working class guys, under recognised rather than non existent.
I have no idea who the parents are of the very few trans people I know. It seems utterly irrelevant. Why would anyone want to make a point about this?
Opportunity to use the word “smallholder”.
They're dad farms about 40 acres, so a reasonable description I would think, and hence the need for a second job in engineering. I have known them since Fox Jr was in Beavers together.
HYUFD was rather implying that being Trans is a middle class affectation. I don't think it is.
Only 38% of working class C2DE voters think adults should be able to change their legal gender, compared to 42% of middle class ABC1s who think they should be able to.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
It seems the increases, which by the way are low anyway, are having the effect of house price reductions which many want but at the same time is fracturing the buy to let market putting pressure on rents, just when that is a great worry for many
One of the “interesting” effects of interest rate hikes is that mortgages are now only paid by a subset of the population - maybe a third.
A third - typically retired - own outright, and a third rent.
So interest rates bash the the struggling middle (crassly expressed) most of all. This never used to be so starkly the case.
Even at 4%, interest rates are probably too toppy for homeowners, even if they are “about right” from a corporate borrowing perspective.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
Boris of course correctly wanted to cap residential care costs at £86k max payment per estate, for the 25% who will need social care for dementia
All these whopping tax cuts and social care cost increases to ensure you keep your family home, who pays? Another 5% on VAT? A flat rate of income tax at 30p?
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
It seems the increases, which by the way are low anyway, are having the effect of house price reductions which many want but at the same time is fracturing the buy to let market putting pressure on rents, just when that is a great worry for many
Rents are up crazy amounts, by anecdata around 25% in the last 2 years from everyone I know outside of London, more within London, and very tight supply.
Mortgages of course will be going up too as people move off fixed deals.
Meanwhile most people's incomes have in no way kept pace with inflation over the last couple of years, while the labour market remains tight. This tells me a lot of people will be either quitting their job to move somewhere else for better pay, or else able to secure a significant pay rise this year - therefore we haven't seen the second order effects of inflation yet.
RCS's economist friend might be right that the first order causes of inflation we've seen over the last couple of years - supply chain disruption, sanctions, etc, might be almost over. But the second order effects - e.g. people demanding pay increases in a tight labour market - are yet to really kick in.
IMHO only a really ugly recession is going to knock inflation on the head.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
Boris of course correctly wanted to cap residential care costs at £86k max payment per estate, for the 25% who will need social care for dementia
All these whopping tax cuts and social care cost increases to ensure you keep your family home, who pays? Another 5% on VAT? A flat rate of income tax at 30p?
National Insurance, which was originally set up to fund things like health, care costs and welfare by a Liberal, Lloyd George no less
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
Boris of course correctly wanted to cap residential care costs at £86k max payment per estate, for the 25% who will need social care for dementia
My son in law and his sister paid in excess of £200,000 for dementia care costs for his mother and father both of whom have now passed away. The money came from their home which was sold to pay the cost
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
Let's assume that he is correct. Whilst inflation dropping towards zero is very welcome after this period of madness, that doesn't mean that prices fall. Just that prices stop rising.
The "how can we afford this" narrative that has possessed so many voters is just embossed into the marble on the Tories' tombstone...
The Government has launched a fresh legal bid to prevent the Covid public inquiry from making public key documents on its handling of the pandemic, i can reveal.
A preliminary hearing next Tuesday is expected to reveal that the Cabinet Office has applied for a so-called Section 19 order to tightly restrict the publication of even redacted messages, diary entries and other papers.
If the Inquiry agrees to the order, such documents cannot be shared with “core participants”, including the Covid Bereaved Families For Justice group.
The affected documents would be used to ‘inform’ the inquiry’s recommendations, but would not be cited in any open hearings and would not be made public for years.
The new bid for secrecy may spark fresh accusations of an attempted cover-up, just days after the Government defied a request from Lady Hallett to hand over uncensored versions of all Whitehall documents linked to the Covid period and launched a judicial review instead.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
It seems the increases, which by the way are low anyway, are having the effect of house price reductions which many want but at the same time is fracturing the buy to let market putting pressure on rents, just when that is a great worry for many
One of the “interesting” effects of interest rate hikes is that mortgages are now only paid by a subset of the population - maybe a third.
A third - typically retired - own outright, and a third rent.
So interest rates bash the the struggling middle (crassly expressed) most of all. This never used to be so starkly the case.
Even at 4%, interest rates are probably too toppy for homeowners, even if they are “about right” from a corporate borrowing perspective.
The real problem is renters who have not acquired a home and who by retirement will still have rent to pay, unlike most homeowners whose mortgage will have matured
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
It seems the increases, which by the way are low anyway, are having the effect of house price reductions which many want but at the same time is fracturing the buy to let market putting pressure on rents, just when that is a great worry for many
Rents are up crazy amounts, by anecdata around 25% in the last 2 years from everyone I know outside of London, more within London, and very tight supply.
Mortgages of course will be going up too as people move off fixed deals.
Meanwhile most people's incomes have in no way kept pace with inflation over the last couple of years, while the labour market remains tight. This tells me a lot of people will be either quitting their job to move somewhere else for better pay, or else able to secure a significant pay rise this year - therefore we haven't seen the second order effects of inflation yet.
RCS's economist friend might be right that the first order causes of inflation we've seen over the last couple of years - supply chain disruption, sanctions, etc, might be almost over. But the second order effects - e.g. people demanding pay increases in a tight labour market - are yet to really kick in.
IMHO only a really ugly recession is going to knock inflation on the head.
You may well be right and the return of negative equity
It happened in the late 1980s to 1994 as explained in this Guardian article
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
It seems the increases, which by the way are low anyway, are having the effect of house price reductions which many want but at the same time is fracturing the buy to let market putting pressure on rents, just when that is a great worry for many
One of the “interesting” effects of interest rate hikes is that mortgages are now only paid by a subset of the population - maybe a third.
A third - typically retired - own outright, and a third rent.
So interest rates bash the the struggling middle (crassly expressed) most of all. This never used to be so starkly the case.
Even at 4%, interest rates are probably too toppy for homeowners, even if they are “about right” from a corporate borrowing perspective.
The real problem is renters who have not acquired a home and who by retirement will still have rent to pay, unlike most homeowners whose mortgage will have matured
The way to help renters is reform planning in order to build more houses.
The Government has launched a fresh legal bid to prevent the Covid public inquiry from making public key documents on its handling of the pandemic, i can reveal.
A preliminary hearing next Tuesday is expected to reveal that the Cabinet Office has applied for a so-called Section 19 order to tightly restrict the publication of even redacted messages, diary entries and other papers.
If the Inquiry agrees to the order, such documents cannot be shared with “core participants”, including the Covid Bereaved Families For Justice group.
The affected documents would be used to ‘inform’ the inquiry’s recommendations, but would not be cited in any open hearings and would not be made public for years.
The new bid for secrecy may spark fresh accusations of an attempted cover-up, just days after the Government defied a request from Lady Hallett to hand over uncensored versions of all Whitehall documents linked to the Covid period and launched a judicial review instead.
The Government has launched a fresh legal bid to prevent the Covid public inquiry from making public key documents on its handling of the pandemic, i can reveal.
A preliminary hearing next Tuesday is expected to reveal that the Cabinet Office has applied for a so-called Section 19 order to tightly restrict the publication of even redacted messages, diary entries and other papers.
If the Inquiry agrees to the order, such documents cannot be shared with “core participants”, including the Covid Bereaved Families For Justice group.
The affected documents would be used to ‘inform’ the inquiry’s recommendations, but would not be cited in any open hearings and would not be made public for years.
The new bid for secrecy may spark fresh accusations of an attempted cover-up, just days after the Government defied a request from Lady Hallett to hand over uncensored versions of all Whitehall documents linked to the Covid period and launched a judicial review instead.
The Government has launched a fresh legal bid to prevent the Covid public inquiry from making public key documents on its handling of the pandemic, i can reveal.
A preliminary hearing next Tuesday is expected to reveal that the Cabinet Office has applied for a so-called Section 19 order to tightly restrict the publication of even redacted messages, diary entries and other papers.
If the Inquiry agrees to the order, such documents cannot be shared with “core participants”, including the Covid Bereaved Families For Justice group.
The affected documents would be used to ‘inform’ the inquiry’s recommendations, but would not be cited in any open hearings and would not be made public for years.
The new bid for secrecy may spark fresh accusations of an attempted cover-up, just days after the Government defied a request from Lady Hallett to hand over uncensored versions of all Whitehall documents linked to the Covid period and launched a judicial review instead.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
Boris of course correctly wanted to cap residential care costs at £86k max payment per estate, for the 25% who will need social care for dementia
My son in law and his sister paid in excess of £200,000 for dementia care costs for his mother and father both of whom have now passed away. The money came from their home which was sold to pay the cost
So they too would have been helped by Boris' proposed £86k cap on social care costs payments from estates
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
Boris of course correctly wanted to cap residential care costs at £86k max payment per estate, for the 25% who will need social care for dementia
My son in law and his sister paid in excess of £200,000 for dementia care costs for his mother and father both of whom have now passed away. The money came from their home which was sold to pay the cost
So they too would have been helped by Boris' proposed £86k cap on social care costs payments from estates
Another empty Johnson promise. 40 new hospitals...
He's an excellent smokescreen for all the Heather Hallet nonsense. If the news outlets all lead on Schofield no one will notice what arses Johnson, Case and Sunak have been.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
It seems the increases, which by the way are low anyway, are having the effect of house price reductions which many want but at the same time is fracturing the buy to let market putting pressure on rents, just when that is a great worry for many
One of the “interesting” effects of interest rate hikes is that mortgages are now only paid by a subset of the population - maybe a third.
A third - typically retired - own outright, and a third rent.
So interest rates bash the the struggling middle (crassly expressed) most of all. This never used to be so starkly the case.
Even at 4%, interest rates are probably too toppy for homeowners, even if they are “about right” from a corporate borrowing perspective.
The real problem is renters who have not acquired a home and who by retirement will still have rent to pay, unlike most homeowners whose mortgage will have matured
The way to help renters is reform planning in order to build more houses.
Yes - but it is something promised but not achieved and I expect it to continue that way whoever is in government
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
Boris of course correctly wanted to cap residential care costs at £86k max payment per estate, for the 25% who will need social care for dementia
My son in law and his sister paid in excess of £200,000 for dementia care costs for his mother and father both of whom have now passed away. The money came from their home which was sold to pay the cost
So they too would have been helped by Boris' proposed £86k cap on social care costs payments from estates
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
Let's assume that he is correct. Whilst inflation dropping towards zero is very welcome after this period of madness, that doesn't mean that prices fall. Just that prices stop rising.
The "how can we afford this" narrative that has possessed so many voters is just embossed into the marble on the Tories' tombstone...
This is probably the worst of all possible worlds for a government facing a GE next year: headline inflation falling to zero while rising housing costs mean most people feel much worse off. Telling the electorate 'we have beaten inflation - vote Tory' isn't going to cut it.
He's an excellent smokescreen for all the Heather Hallet nonsense. If the news outlets all lead on Schofield no one will notice what arses Johnson, Case and Sunak have been.
It is also keeping the sleeze in Labour out of the headlines with not only Geraint Davies suspended, but allegations made again today that the party are covering up a shadow minister unacceptable behaviour
He's an excellent smokescreen for all the Heather Hallet nonsense. If the news outlets all lead on Schofield no one will notice what arses Johnson, Case and Sunak have been.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
Boris of course correctly wanted to cap residential care costs at £86k max payment per estate, for the 25% who will need social care for dementia
My son in law and his sister paid in excess of £200,000 for dementia care costs for his mother and father both of whom have now passed away. The money came from their home which was sold to pay the cost
So they too would have been helped by Boris' proposed £86k cap on social care costs payments from estates
Depends on Welsh labour
I don't believe the Welsh Government are proposing this threshold increase, although, and I may be wrong it is currently higher than currently is the case in England. Speaking from experience there were quite substantial care benefits available in Wales which weren't in England.
The problem I have with all of Johnson and Truss's freebies, freebies that HY is on board with, is how do we pay for them?
The trans activist who disrupted a talk by Prof Kathleen Stock is the daughter of a council boss who introduced a four-day working week.
Riz Possnett’s mother Liz Watts was working on a PhD thesis on the topic when South Cambridgeshire District Council last year became the first to implement a trial to cut hours while staff remain on the same pay.
So much for just being a poor he/her/they, from a poor family. Mum and dad extremely well connected people, no wonder they can afford the swimming pool and hot tub.
God, I hate these posh/upper middle class people who pretend to be soil of the earth working class plebs.
I would of thought being very pro Trans almost certainly marks you out as being more likely to be upper middle class, at least by education, than working class. Probably even more so than opposition to Brexit which is equally a view most strongly held by the upper middle classes
The only Trans person I know well is a friend of Fox jr2, and whose father is a smallholder and works in engineering too.
I think working class Trans people are like working class guys, under recognised rather than non existent.
I have no idea who the parents are of the very few trans people I know. It seems utterly irrelevant. Why would anyone want to make a point about this?
Opportunity to use the word “smallholder”.
They're dad farms about 40 acres, so a reasonable description I would think, and hence the need for a second job in engineering. I have known them since Fox Jr was in Beavers together.
HYUFD was rather implying that being Trans is a middle class affectation. I don't think it is.
Only 38% of working class C2DE voters think adults should be able to change their legal gender, compared to 42% of middle class ABC1s who think they should be able to.
The trans activist who disrupted a talk by Prof Kathleen Stock is the daughter of a council boss who introduced a four-day working week.
Riz Possnett’s mother Liz Watts was working on a PhD thesis on the topic when South Cambridgeshire District Council last year became the first to implement a trial to cut hours while staff remain on the same pay.
So much for just being a poor he/her/they, from a poor family. Mum and dad extremely well connected people, no wonder they can afford the swimming pool and hot tub.
God, I hate these posh/upper middle class people who pretend to be soil of the earth working class plebs.
I would of thought being very pro Trans almost certainly marks you out as being more likely to be upper middle class, at least by education, than working class. Probably even more so than opposition to Brexit which is equally a view most strongly held by the upper middle classes
The only Trans person I know well is a friend of Fox jr2, and whose father is a smallholder and works in engineering too.
I think working class Trans people are like working class guys, under recognised rather than non existent.
I have no idea who the parents are of the very few trans people I know. It seems utterly irrelevant. Why would anyone want to make a point about this?
Opportunity to use the word “smallholder”.
They're dad farms about 40 acres, so a reasonable description I would think, and hence the need for a second job in engineering. I have known them since Fox Jr was in Beavers together.
HYUFD was rather implying that being Trans is a middle class affectation. I don't think it is.
Only 38% of working class C2DE voters think adults should be able to change their legal gender, compared to 42% of middle class ABC1s who think they should be able to.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
Boris of course correctly wanted to cap residential care costs at £86k max payment per estate, for the 25% who will need social care for dementia
And how many of that 25% have homes to sell? A decreasing percentage now, thanks to Conservative [sic] policies.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
"you leftwingers"
That's you told.
Ofg course, a decreasing percentage have full equity in their houses. It's no good havingf a house worth over 325K when one dies, if one has a mortage for half of it.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
Boris of course correctly wanted to cap residential care costs at £86k max payment per estate, for the 25% who will need social care for dementia
My son in law and his sister paid in excess of £200,000 for dementia care costs for his mother and father both of whom have now passed away. The money came from their home which was sold to pay the cost
So they too would have been helped by Boris' proposed £86k cap on social care costs payments from estates
Depends on Welsh labour
I don't believe the Welsh Government are proposing this threshold increase, although, and I may be wrong it is currently higher than currently is the case in England. Speaking from experience there were quite substantial care benefits available in Wales which weren't in England.
The problem I have with all of Johnson and Truss's freebies, freebies that HY is on board with, is how do we pay for them?
My sister had 2 year care costs paid by the Welsh NHS under their continuing health care scheme when she was diagnosed terminally ill with cancer and died 2 years later.
However that scheme is no longer available and did not apply to dementia
I do not agree with @HYUFD quest for IHT increases beyond those already available, and certainly it is not the place of the taxpayer to subsidise house purchase
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
That will no doubt lead to the Tories winning by a landslide in the next GE then.
The media have totally lost the plot with their Schofield obsession.
O, To be in England now that Schofield’s queer. And whoever wakes in England sees This Morning’s gay affair Dominate the news and the radio waves While the Johnson lies and the Truss doth rave And the PM covers up a Covid row In England - now!
He's an excellent smokescreen for all the Heather Hallet nonsense. If the news outlets all lead on Schofield no one will notice what arses Johnson, Case and Sunak have been.
It is also keeping the sleeze in Labour out of the headlines with not only Geraint Davies suspended, but allegations made again today that the party are covering up a shadow minister unacceptable behaviour
No. R4 PM led on Charlotte Nichols and Stella Creasey explaining that when they arrived in Parliament in 2019 and 2010 respectively they were warned that 30 MPs were a danger to young female MPs. They were both highly critical of the Labour Party hierarchy who ignored common knowledge regarding Davies. It was couched as an exclusively Labour Party problem by Evan Davies. It clearly isn't and I was expecting the usual BBC balance caveats, perhaps referencing Rob Roberts or Pincher, but he didn't. I think BBC balance only applies to negative stories involving Boris Johnson.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
I think his point was more subtle.
If interest rates chase headline inflation down, it will be adding a lot of inflationary fuel to the fire. Essentially people will have more disposable income from lower gas and electricity (and food) bills, and if you combine that with falling interest rates, then you will create a big surge in demand.
Better to cut rates now, to relieve pressure on households, and then be in a position to tighten next year.
(More generally, I agree that ultra loose monetary policy is bad for everyone in the medium term. However, it's very rare that real interest rates - i.e. the gap between what is paid on debt and inflation - exceeds 3 or 4%.)
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
"you leftwingers"
That's you told.
Ofg course, a decreasing percentage have full equity in their houses. It's no good havingf a house worth over 325K when one dies, if one has a mortage for half of it.
I disagree with @HYUFD and while I am a one nation conservative I am not a left winger
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
I think his point was more subtle.
If interest rates chase headline inflation down, it will be adding a lot of inflationary fuel to the fire. Essentially people will have more disposable income from lower gas and electricity (and food) bills, and if you combine that with falling interest rates, then you will create a big surge in demand.
Better to cut rates now, to relieve pressure on households, and then be in a position to tighten next year.
(More generally, I agree that ultra loose monetary policy is bad for everyone in the medium term. However, it's very rare that real interest rates - i.e. the gap between what is paid on debt and inflation - exceeds 3 or 4%.)
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
Let's assume that he is correct. Whilst inflation dropping towards zero is very welcome after this period of madness, that doesn't mean that prices fall. Just that prices stop rising.
The "how can we afford this" narrative that has possessed so many voters is just embossed into the marble on the Tories' tombstone...
That's right. While eliminating shortage driven inflation is welcome and inevitable in the end, it will lock in high prices. Rents are already sky high, fuel seems to have settled at about twice what it was before and a bit smaller but still very large increase is likely for food as well. Which is the bulk of people's cost of living. People will continue to feel poorer.
But take @rcs1000 point about cutting interest rates sooner rather than later.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
It seems the increases, which by the way are low anyway, are having the effect of house price reductions which many want but at the same time is fracturing the buy to let market putting pressure on rents, just when that is a great worry for many
One of the “interesting” effects of interest rate hikes is that mortgages are now only paid by a subset of the population - maybe a third.
A third - typically retired - own outright, and a third rent.
So interest rates bash the the struggling middle (crassly expressed) most of all. This never used to be so starkly the case.
Even at 4%, interest rates are probably too toppy for homeowners, even if they are “about right” from a corporate borrowing perspective.
The real problem is renters who have not acquired a home and who by retirement will still have rent to pay, unlike most homeowners whose mortgage will have matured
The way to help renters is reform planning in order to build more houses.
Build houses until they are giving them away. Build. Build. Build.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
I think his point was more subtle.
If interest rates chase headline inflation down, it will be adding a lot of inflationary fuel to the fire. Essentially people will have more disposable income from lower gas and electricity (and food) bills, and if you combine that with falling interest rates, then you will create a big surge in demand.
Better to cut rates now, to relieve pressure on households, and then be in a position to tighten next year.
(More generally, I agree that ultra loose monetary policy is bad for everyone in the medium term. However, it's very rare that real interest rates - i.e. the gap between what is paid on debt and inflation - exceeds 3 or 4%.)
But that's my point. Just because inflation is back under control is bluntly no reason to cut interest rates.
In particular, if they even think about cutting them back down to low levels they'll bugger pensions again.
It seems to me a ridiculous assumption that interest rates *should* come down merely because official inflation does. Rather, they should not rise further from what remain pretty low levels.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
Let's assume that he is correct. Whilst inflation dropping towards zero is very welcome after this period of madness, that doesn't mean that prices fall. Just that prices stop rising.
The "how can we afford this" narrative that has possessed so many voters is just embossed into the marble on the Tories' tombstone...
That's right. While eliminating shortage driven inflation is welcome and inevitable in the end, it will lock in high prices. Rents are already sky high, fuel seems to have settled at about twice what it was before and a bit smaller but still very large increase is likely for food as well. Which is the bulk of people's cost of living. People will continue to feel poorer.
But take @rcs1000 point about cutting interest rates sooner rather than later.
How is fuel twice what it was before? It’s not been 70p a litre for decades.
I think the poll was posted earlier, but I do like the way Omnisis tweeted it:
1/ With the relentless intensity of a Skynet Terminator, Labour continues to lead our voter intention poll, increasing its lead from 19 to 21 points this week:
🔴 Lab 46% (-1) 🔵 Con 25% (-3) 🟠 LD 10% (NC) 🟡 SNP 3% (NC) ⚪ Ref 6% (NC) 🟢 Green 7% (+2)
He's an excellent smokescreen for all the Heather Hallet nonsense. If the news outlets all lead on Schofield no one will notice what arses Johnson, Case and Sunak have been.
It is also keeping the sleeze in Labour out of the headlines with not only Geraint Davies suspended, but allegations made again today that the party are covering up a shadow minister unacceptable behaviour
No. R4 PM led on Charlotte Nichols and Stella Creasey explaining that when they arrived in Parliament in 2019 and 2010 respectively they were warned that 30 MPs were a danger to young female MPs. They were both highly critical of the Labour Party hierarchy who ignored common knowledge regarding Davies. It was couched as an exclusively Labour Party problem by Evan Davies. It clearly isn't and I was expecting the usual BBC balance caveats, perhaps referencing Rob Roberts or Pincher, but he didn't. I think BBC balance only applies to negative stories involving Boris Johnson.
The point though is Schofield is dominating everything in the media and now they are giving out the Samaritans phone number
The reporting has been disgraceful and it demotes other stories including covid and Labour’s sleeze
It is across all parties but Starmer and labour are covering up allegations about a shadow minister which is not acceptable in the present climate
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
I think his point was more subtle.
If interest rates chase headline inflation down, it will be adding a lot of inflationary fuel to the fire. Essentially people will have more disposable income from lower gas and electricity (and food) bills, and if you combine that with falling interest rates, then you will create a big surge in demand.
Better to cut rates now, to relieve pressure on households, and then be in a position to tighten next year.
(More generally, I agree that ultra loose monetary policy is bad for everyone in the medium term. However, it's very rare that real interest rates - i.e. the gap between what is paid on debt and inflation - exceeds 3 or 4%.)
Not sure how this works. People will have a bit more disposable income compared with six months earlier but a LOT LESS than they had two years earlier.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
"you leftwingers"
That's you told.
Ofg course, a decreasing percentage have full equity in their houses. It's no good havingf a house worth over 325K when one dies, if one has a mortage for half of it.
I disagree with @HYUFD and while I am a one nation conservative I am not a left winger
He'll be back on in a minute to explain why you're not a true Tory because you didn't fight Cromwell in defence of King Charles II, or something similar.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
This is basically right - there are certain wheezes that can be used to protect at least some of the value of a house from the grasping mitts of the local council under very particular circumstances, but basically it's pot luck as to whether the heirs of elderly homeowners receive a life-transforming fortune or the last few grand.
It's one of the myriad ways in which dementia is oh so very cruel. Sufferers, particularly as the rot becomes more advanced, frequently linger on with no quality of life for years, AND burn almost everything they wanted to leave to their kids in the process.
Yes. And it isn't even treated as a disease, even though it clearly is one.
The NHS won't provide any care for a dementia sufferer, but if you get cancer, it is a different matter.
I know it will be expensive, but there needs to be an equitable solution instead of a lottery.
Do I recall a proposal that there should be some kind of insurance offered for people that would pay out for care if you got dementia? Of course that would only be available for those who could afford the premiums.
I think the poll was posted earlier, but I do like the way Omnisis tweeted it:
1/ With the relentless intensity of a Skynet Terminator, Labour continues to lead our voter intention poll, increasing its lead from 19 to 21 points this week:
🔴 Lab 46% (-1) 🔵 Con 25% (-3) 🟠 LD 10% (NC) 🟡 SNP 3% (NC) ⚪ Ref 6% (NC) 🟢 Green 7% (+2)
He's an excellent smokescreen for all the Heather Hallet nonsense. If the news outlets all lead on Schofield no one will notice what arses Johnson, Case and Sunak have been.
It is also keeping the sleeze in Labour out of the headlines with not only Geraint Davies suspended, but allegations made again today that the party are covering up a shadow minister unacceptable behaviour
No. R4 PM led on Charlotte Nichols and Stella Creasey explaining that when they arrived in Parliament in 2019 and 2010 respectively they were warned that 30 MPs were a danger to young female MPs. They were both highly critical of the Labour Party hierarchy who ignored common knowledge regarding Davies. It was couched as an exclusively Labour Party problem by Evan Davies. It clearly isn't and I was expecting the usual BBC balance caveats, perhaps referencing Rob Roberts or Pincher, but he didn't. I think BBC balance only applies to negative stories involving Boris Johnson.
The point though is Schofield is dominating everything in the media and now they are giving out the Samaritans phone number
The reporting has been disgraceful and it demotes other stories including covid and Labour’s sleeze
It is across all parties but Starmer and labour are covering up allegations about a shadow minister which is not acceptable in the present climate
If Starmer is covering up allegations, it is unacceptable. But do you have any evidence for that, or is it just another one of your Starmer witch-hunts?
I am more concerned frankly that Labour HQ have de-selected the North East Mayor for standing again, apparently for consorting with Ken Loach.
I think the poll was posted earlier, but I do like the way Omnisis tweeted it:
1/ With the relentless intensity of a Skynet Terminator, Labour continues to lead our voter intention poll, increasing its lead from 19 to 21 points this week:
🔴 Lab 46% (-1) 🔵 Con 25% (-3) 🟠 LD 10% (NC) 🟡 SNP 3% (NC) ⚪ Ref 6% (NC) 🟢 Green 7% (+2)
The Government has launched a fresh legal bid to prevent the Covid public inquiry from making public key documents on its handling of the pandemic, i can reveal.
A preliminary hearing next Tuesday is expected to reveal that the Cabinet Office has applied for a so-called Section 19 order to tightly restrict the publication of even redacted messages, diary entries and other papers.
If the Inquiry agrees to the order, such documents cannot be shared with “core participants”, including the Covid Bereaved Families For Justice group.
The affected documents would be used to ‘inform’ the inquiry’s recommendations, but would not be cited in any open hearings and would not be made public for years.
The new bid for secrecy may spark fresh accusations of an attempted cover-up, just days after the Government defied a request from Lady Hallett to hand over uncensored versions of all Whitehall documents linked to the Covid period and launched a judicial review instead.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
Let's assume that he is correct. Whilst inflation dropping towards zero is very welcome after this period of madness, that doesn't mean that prices fall. Just that prices stop rising.
The "how can we afford this" narrative that has possessed so many voters is just embossed into the marble on the Tories' tombstone...
That's right. While eliminating shortage driven inflation is welcome and inevitable in the end, it will lock in high prices. Rents are already sky high, fuel seems to have settled at about twice what it was before and a bit smaller but still very large increase is likely for food as well. Which is the bulk of people's cost of living. People will continue to feel poorer.
But take @rcs1000 point about cutting interest rates sooner rather than later.
How is fuel twice what it was before? It’s not been 70p a litre for decades.
The Government has launched a fresh legal bid to prevent the Covid public inquiry from making public key documents on its handling of the pandemic, i can reveal.
A preliminary hearing next Tuesday is expected to reveal that the Cabinet Office has applied for a so-called Section 19 order to tightly restrict the publication of even redacted messages, diary entries and other papers.
If the Inquiry agrees to the order, such documents cannot be shared with “core participants”, including the Covid Bereaved Families For Justice group.
The affected documents would be used to ‘inform’ the inquiry’s recommendations, but would not be cited in any open hearings and would not be made public for years.
The new bid for secrecy may spark fresh accusations of an attempted cover-up, just days after the Government defied a request from Lady Hallett to hand over uncensored versions of all Whitehall documents linked to the Covid period and launched a judicial review instead.
Whilst Johnson has claimed to have handed all his evidence directly to Hallet. Johnson is doing Sunak up like a kipper. What a good boy Boris is!
Except of course for the minor detail of Johnson's phone with all the crucial information held therein which he still has.
What's significant about this new development is that it indicates that the 'irrelevant information' argument was a complete lie. It is now obvious, if anyone was naive enough to believe that argument, that the motivation was the concealment of information from the public, whether or not that information is relevant to the enquiry or not.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
"you leftwingers"
That's you told.
Ofg course, a decreasing percentage have full equity in their houses. It's no good havingf a house worth over 325K when one dies, if one has a mortage for half of it.
I disagree with @HYUFD and while I am a one nation conservative I am not a left winger
He'll be back on in a minute to explain why you're not a true Tory because you didn't fight Cromwell in defence of King Charles II, or something similar.
Indeed, BigG would definitely have been a Roundhead and then a Whig!
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
Let's assume that he is correct. Whilst inflation dropping towards zero is very welcome after this period of madness, that doesn't mean that prices fall. Just that prices stop rising.
The "how can we afford this" narrative that has possessed so many voters is just embossed into the marble on the Tories' tombstone...
That's right. While eliminating shortage driven inflation is welcome and inevitable in the end, it will lock in high prices. Rents are already sky high, fuel seems to have settled at about twice what it was before and a bit smaller but still very large increase is likely for food as well. Which is the bulk of people's cost of living. People will continue to feel poorer.
But take @rcs1000 point about cutting interest rates sooner rather than later.
How is fuel twice what it was before? It’s not been 70p a litre for decades.
I was thinking more of domestic energy. You pay 70p a litre for vehicle fuel?
He's an excellent smokescreen for all the Heather Hallet nonsense. If the news outlets all lead on Schofield no one will notice what arses Johnson, Case and Sunak have been.
It is also keeping the sleeze in Labour out of the headlines with not only Geraint Davies suspended, but allegations made again today that the party are covering up a shadow minister unacceptable behaviour
No. R4 PM led on Charlotte Nichols and Stella Creasey explaining that when they arrived in Parliament in 2019 and 2010 respectively they were warned that 30 MPs were a danger to young female MPs. They were both highly critical of the Labour Party hierarchy who ignored common knowledge regarding Davies. It was couched as an exclusively Labour Party problem by Evan Davies. It clearly isn't and I was expecting the usual BBC balance caveats, perhaps referencing Rob Roberts or Pincher, but he didn't. I think BBC balance only applies to negative stories involving Boris Johnson.
The point though is Schofield is dominating everything in the media and now they are giving out the Samaritans phone number
The reporting has been disgraceful and it demotes other stories including covid and Labour’s sleeze
It is across all parties but Starmer and labour are covering up allegations about a shadow minister which is not acceptable in the present climate
If Starmer is covering up allegations, it is unacceptable. But do you have any evidence for that, or is it just another one of your Starmer witch-hunts?
I am more concerned frankly that Labour HQ have de-selected the North East Mayor for standing again, apparently for consorting with Ken Loach.
I have already posted the link and it has been reported for a while now
The Government has launched a fresh legal bid to prevent the Covid public inquiry from making public key documents on its handling of the pandemic, i can reveal.
A preliminary hearing next Tuesday is expected to reveal that the Cabinet Office has applied for a so-called Section 19 order to tightly restrict the publication of even redacted messages, diary entries and other papers.
If the Inquiry agrees to the order, such documents cannot be shared with “core participants”, including the Covid Bereaved Families For Justice group.
The affected documents would be used to ‘inform’ the inquiry’s recommendations, but would not be cited in any open hearings and would not be made public for years.
The new bid for secrecy may spark fresh accusations of an attempted cover-up, just days after the Government defied a request from Lady Hallett to hand over uncensored versions of all Whitehall documents linked to the Covid period and launched a judicial review instead.
Whilst Johnson has claimed to have handed all his evidence directly to Hallet. Johnson is doing Sunak up like a kipper. What a good boy Boris is!
Except of course for the minor detail of Johnson's phone with all the crucial information held therein which he still has.
What's significant about this new development is that it indicates that the 'irrelevant information' argument was a complete lie. It is now obvious, if anyone was naive enough to believe that argument, that the motivation was the concealment of information from the public, whether or not that information is relevant to the enquiry or not.
One of the bizarre things about this affair is Sunak’s unwillingness to provide an honest view on why the government is attempting to suppress information.
I think the poll was posted earlier, but I do like the way Omnisis tweeted it:
1/ With the relentless intensity of a Skynet Terminator, Labour continues to lead our voter intention poll, increasing its lead from 19 to 21 points this week:
🔴 Lab 46% (-1) 🔵 Con 25% (-3) 🟠 LD 10% (NC) 🟡 SNP 3% (NC) ⚪ Ref 6% (NC) 🟢 Green 7% (+2)
It really is quite hard to figure out where that swingback is going to come from as Sunaks honeymoon draws to an ignoble close.
The little shit doesn't even seem to have much support among tories in here. Casino is the only real Sunak fan boi while BigG and HYUFD half-heartedly go along with it out of some glum sense of duty.
The Government has launched a fresh legal bid to prevent the Covid public inquiry from making public key documents on its handling of the pandemic, i can reveal.
A preliminary hearing next Tuesday is expected to reveal that the Cabinet Office has applied for a so-called Section 19 order to tightly restrict the publication of even redacted messages, diary entries and other papers.
If the Inquiry agrees to the order, such documents cannot be shared with “core participants”, including the Covid Bereaved Families For Justice group.
The affected documents would be used to ‘inform’ the inquiry’s recommendations, but would not be cited in any open hearings and would not be made public for years.
The new bid for secrecy may spark fresh accusations of an attempted cover-up, just days after the Government defied a request from Lady Hallett to hand over uncensored versions of all Whitehall documents linked to the Covid period and launched a judicial review instead.
Whilst Johnson has claimed to have handed all his evidence directly to Hallet. Johnson is doing Sunak up like a kipper. What a good boy Boris is!
Except of course for the minor detail of Johnson's phone with all the crucial information held therein which he still has.
What's significant about this new development is that it indicates that the 'irrelevant information' argument was a complete lie. It is now obvious, if anyone was naive enough to believe that argument, that the motivation was the concealment of information from the public, whether or not that information is relevant to the enquiry or not.
One of the bizarre things about this affair is Sunak’s unwillingness to provide an honest view on why the government is attempting to suppress information.
It only leaves one conclusion.
Cover up.
But the Government is confident in its position, and has released tens of thousands of documents. *fake grin*
Comments
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
I should wait until November before I re-mortgage rather than lock in now?
To be honest, that was my plan anyway.
I think inflation has been surprisingly tenacious, but once it falls it will fall rapidly.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue?
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
Custard tarts
Cascais
Sintra
Practical measures but we do intend to try to stay around a wee while longer but we have been very blessed with a wonderful family and 5 adorable grandchildren
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
There was a story in the Hereford Times a while back of a man with dementia deposited outside a care home in Hereford. Herefordshire Council footed the bill whilst searching for the man's identity. After a significant number of months they traced his origins back some Midwest state. Due to exorbitant US care costs the family did just as I advised in paragraph one. In his case Herefordshire Council paid for a return ticket.
If you only want to do one day trip, make it Sintra. You can do Cascais in an evening - it's an hour, but the trains are frequent.
Putting up interest rates just doesn't work to control a price spike in commodities. All it does is cause pain and near-recession.
18% of ABC1s think you should not need a doctor's approval to change gender while only 15% of C2DEs think that
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2022/07/20/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights
With regard to interest rates, a return to sensible pricing of money ie having real interest rates ie where the rate exceeds inflation would be welcome.
- Jeronimos
- Azulejo museum, if you are into your decorative arts
Just because C2DE's can't afford gender reassignment they are spoiling the party for everyone else.
The cult of celebrity is out of control and the media have a lot to answer for in over the top reporting
A third - typically retired - own outright, and a third rent.
So interest rates bash the the struggling middle (crassly expressed) most of all. This never used to be so starkly the case.
Even at 4%, interest rates are probably too toppy for homeowners, even if they are “about right” from a corporate borrowing perspective.
Mortgages of course will be going up too as people move off fixed deals.
Meanwhile most people's incomes have in no way kept pace with inflation over the last couple of years, while the labour market remains tight. This tells me a lot of people will be either quitting their job to move somewhere else for better pay, or else able to secure a significant pay rise this year - therefore we haven't seen the second order effects of inflation yet.
RCS's economist friend might be right that the first order causes of inflation we've seen over the last couple of years - supply chain disruption, sanctions, etc, might be almost over. But the second order effects - e.g. people demanding pay increases in a tight labour market - are yet to really kick in.
IMHO only a really ugly recession is going to knock inflation on the head.
The "how can we afford this" narrative that has possessed so many voters is just embossed into the marble on the Tories' tombstone...
The Government has launched a fresh legal bid to prevent the Covid public inquiry from making public key documents on its handling of the pandemic, i can reveal.
A preliminary hearing next Tuesday is expected to reveal that the Cabinet Office has applied for a so-called Section 19 order to tightly restrict the publication of even redacted messages, diary entries and other papers.
If the Inquiry agrees to the order, such documents cannot be shared with “core participants”, including the Covid Bereaved Families For Justice group.
The affected documents would be used to ‘inform’ the inquiry’s recommendations, but would not be cited in any open hearings and would not be made public for years.
The new bid for secrecy may spark fresh accusations of an attempted cover-up, just days after the Government defied a request from Lady Hallett to hand over uncensored versions of all Whitehall documents linked to the Covid period and launched a judicial review instead.
https://inews.co.uk/news/government-in-new-legal-bid-to-stop-bereaved-families-ever-reading-redacted-covid-whatsapps-2384005
It happened in the late 1980s to 1994 as explained in this Guardian article
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/18/housingmarket.houseprices?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Except of course for the minor detail of Johnson's phone with all the crucial information held therein which he still has.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB-fUwNFkNo
- No 12 circular tram. Or any of the little old trams really, they're all great.
- Museu de marinha
- Jardim botanico
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-mp-says-opposition-frontbencher-still-in-post-despite-being-reported-to-police-for-alleged-sexual-assault-12895013
The problem I have with all of Johnson and Truss's freebies, freebies that HY is on board with, is how do we pay for them?
That's you told.
Ofg course, a decreasing percentage have full equity in their houses. It's no good havingf a house worth over 325K when one dies, if one has a mortage for half of it.
India train crash: At least 50 dead after Odisha incident
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-65793257
Railway accidents in India seem to be the equivalent of mass shootings in the US.
However that scheme is no longer available and did not apply to dementia
I do not agree with @HYUFD quest for IHT increases beyond those already available, and certainly it is not the place of the taxpayer to subsidise house purchase
And whoever wakes in England sees This Morning’s gay affair
Dominate the news and the radio waves
While the Johnson lies and the Truss doth rave
And the PM covers up a Covid row
In England - now!
If interest rates chase headline inflation down, it will be adding a lot of inflationary fuel to the fire. Essentially people will have more disposable income from lower gas and electricity (and food) bills, and if you combine that with falling interest rates, then you will create a big surge in demand.
Better to cut rates now, to relieve pressure on households, and then be in a position to tighten next year.
(More generally, I agree that ultra loose monetary policy is bad for everyone in the medium term. However, it's very rare that real interest rates - i.e. the gap between what is paid on debt and inflation - exceeds 3 or 4%.)
But take @rcs1000 point about cutting interest rates sooner rather than later.
In particular, if they even think about cutting them back down to low levels they'll bugger pensions again.
It seems to me a ridiculous assumption that interest rates *should* come down merely because official inflation does. Rather, they should not rise further from what remain pretty low levels.
1/ With the relentless intensity of a Skynet Terminator, Labour continues to lead our voter intention poll, increasing its lead from 19 to 21 points this week:
🔴 Lab 46% (-1)
🔵 Con 25% (-3)
🟠 LD 10% (NC)
🟡 SNP 3% (NC)
⚪ Ref 6% (NC)
🟢 Green 7% (+2)
https://twitter.com/Omnisis/status/1664648855567179777?t=8o7R2nX8M848nV2xKFsFfA&s=19
2/ Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s popularity hasn’t been terminated just yet, but his negative net approval rate has plunged six points to -15…
👍 Approve: 28% (-3)
👎 Disapprove: 43% (+3)
🤷 Neither: 28% (-1)
https://twitter.com/Omnisis/status/1664648858419228675?t=AAS1fM--Ubw3GNanDC-Emw&s=19
(The rest of the thread is good too)
The reporting has been disgraceful and it demotes other stories including covid and Labour’s sleeze
It is across all parties but Starmer and labour are covering up allegations about a shadow minister which is not acceptable in the present climate
10a/ In January, the Prime Minister unveiled five key priorities. We asked how people think the Government was performing on each priority:
📈 Halving inflation – 62% badly | 13% well | 20% neither | 5% DK
📉 Reducing Debt – 58% badly | 12% well | 22% neither | 7% DK
10b/ And your views on the other three Government priorities...
💷 Growing the Economy – 55% badly | 16% well | 23% neither | 5% DK
⚕️ Cut NHS waiting lists – 66% badly | 12% well | 17% neither | 5% DK
🛶 Stopping small boats – 57% badly | 12% well | 22% neither | 9% DK
https://twitter.com/Omnisis/status/1664648869588631553?t=s3HWtkf5mgSlczGgZUVREw&s=19
It really is quite hard to figure out where that swingback is going to come from as Sunaks honeymoon draws to an ignoble close.
But do you have any evidence for that, or is it just another one of your Starmer witch-hunts?
I am more concerned frankly that Labour HQ have de-selected the North East Mayor for standing again, apparently for consorting with Ken Loach.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-mp-says-opposition-frontbencher-still-in-post-despite-being-reported-to-police-for-alleged-sexual-assault-12895013
It only leaves one conclusion.
Cover up.