Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
And of course there was not 1 Christian in Britain when Christ walked the earth
There wasn't a Christian anywhere!
Considering Jesus actually visited Glastonbury together with Joseph of Arimathea, I'm quite shocked by what HYUFD has said.
Jesus certainluy self-identified as a Jew, in any case. (No idea what else.)
He was born a Jew, by his death he had created a new covenant, a new message as set out by the disciples in the gospels and founded a new religion of Christianity based on his teachings
Oh I see. He was only a Christian after he had died.
Yes, he had not founded Christianity when he was born. When Jesus was born Christianity had not been founded and nor had Islam (Muhammad walked the earth after Jesus). The only Abrahamic religion at the time of Jesus' birth was Judaism which Jesus was born into
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
And of course there was not 1 Christian in Britain when Christ walked the earth
There wasn't a Christian anywhere!
Considering Jesus actually visited Glastonbury together with Joseph of Arimathea, I'm quite shocked by what HYUFD has said.
Even if they visited Britain, neither were native British but from Palestine and Judea
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
So Christ had more followers than Truss?
“Christ only had 13 agents, and one was a double.”
He could draw a crowd of 5000, which must have been a considerable proportion of those living around Galilee 2000 years ago.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
So Christ had more followers than Truss?
“Christ only had 13 agents, and one was a double.”
12 , surely, of whom….etc! Unless you’re counting Mary Magdalene?
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
'Tis god's will.
This discussion gives me an opportunity to fire up a favourite word - antidisestablishmentarianism
It used to give my eldest daughter much joy to ask me my favourite word, hear it, attempt to say it, and collapse in laughter.
The youngest did a presentation for her RE class on it.
Who said learning had to be boring.
Edit: Church Tax is still a thing in Germany
But it is optional and if you choose to pay it you specify Roman Catholic or Evangelische Church (which is the equivalent to the CoE here). I don't pay it.
Except the Evangelische Church is Lutheran not Anglican, albeit both along with Calvinism were the original Protestant denominations which broke away from the Vatican and Roman Catholicism's monopoly on Christianity in the 16th century
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
'Tis god's will.
This discussion gives me an opportunity to fire up a favourite word - antidisestablishmentarianism
It used to give my eldest daughter much joy to ask me my favourite word, hear it, attempt to say it, and collapse in laughter.
The youngest did a presentation for her RE class on it.
Who said learning had to be boring.
Edit: Church Tax is still a thing in Germany
And Sweden and Denmark I think
Denmark's Lutheran church is still the established church there with the monarch obliged to belong to it, 73% of Danes are at least nominal members of it. It is funded by a church tax for members and government subsidy
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
I know that house prices have gone up, for those who own them. My point is that fewer people own houses now, compared to their parents’ generation 20 or 30 years ago, mostly because housebuilding hasn’t kept up with population growth.
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
'Tis god's will.
This discussion gives me an opportunity to fire up a favourite word - antidisestablishmentarianism
It used to give my eldest daughter much joy to ask me my favourite word, hear it, attempt to say it, and collapse in laughter.
The youngest did a presentation for her RE class on it.
Who said learning had to be boring.
Edit: Church Tax is still a thing in Germany
But it is optional and if you choose to pay it you specify Roman Catholic or Evangelische Church (which is the equivalent to the CoE here). I don't pay it.
Except the Evanelische Church is Lutheran not Anglican, albeit both along with Calvinism were the original Protestant denominations which broke away from the Vatican and Roman Catholicism's monopoly on Christianity in the 16th century
Weren’t there Orthodox and Ethiopian churches in the 16th Century. The pope was supreme in Western Europe but not in the rest of the Christian world.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
So Christ had more followers than Truss?
“Christ only had 13 agents, and one was a double.”
He could draw a crowd of 5000, which must have been a considerable proportion of those living around Galilee 2000 years ago.
For a free all you can eat buffet. They'll have been coming from miles away.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
And of course there was not 1 Christian in Britain when Christ walked the earth
There wasn't a Christian anywhere!
Considering Jesus actually visited Glastonbury together with Joseph of Arimathea, I'm quite shocked by what HYUFD has said.
Jesus certainluy self-identified as a Jew, in any case. (No idea what else.)
He was born a Jew, by his death he had created a new covenant, a new message as set out by the disciples in the gospels and founded a new religion of Christianity based on his teachings
Oh I see. He was only a Christian after he had died.
Yes, he had not founded Christianity when he was born. When Jesus was born Christianity had not been founded and nor had Islam (Muhammad walked the earth after Jesus). The only Abrahamic religion at the time of Jesus' birth was Judaism which Jesus was born into
Thank you so much for this interesting information. Never let it be said that this site isn't educational.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Though He didn't have a listed building to maintain or a tea rota to staff.
Or the £8.7 billion of assets and investments the Church of England still has
Many of the churches assets were stolen from the people of this country. If we are looking at reparations then the church should be looking at reparations in the U.K. to the people,of,the U.K.
More correctly, owned by the Catholic Church [now Roman Catholic, not the Anglican splinter] in trust for the people.
There is plenty of case law that says the splitters don't get the assets, on the whole. See the Free Churches of Scotland passim.
We also need to look at reparations from the aristocracy, too, given what happened at the Dissolution. And the posh public schools such as Eton. Possibly the only institutions still functioning as their donors intended, mutatis mutandis for the modern context, are the Oxbridge colleges.
Most Oxbridge colleges have Roman Catholic services as well as the main Anglican ones.
Reflecting the fact that all pre 1531 Oxbridge college chapels would indeed have been Roman Catholic
All churches that predate 1531 were RC. Not many of those still standing hold RC services. I'm sure the reason why Oxford holds RC services in protestant chapels, is to reflect the christian diversity of their students and the ecumenical drive in the post war years in the UK.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
I know that house prices have gone up, for those who own them. My point is that fewer people own houses now, compared to their parents’ generation 20 or 30 years ago, mostly because housebuilding hasn’t kept up with population growth.
2/3 still own them however and many more own houses compared to their grandparents' generation 50 years ago or their great grandparents' generation 100 years ago
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
And of course there was not 1 Christian in Britain when Christ walked the earth
There wasn't a Christian anywhere!
Considering Jesus actually visited Glastonbury together with Joseph of Arimathea, I'm quite shocked by what HYUFD has said.
Jesus certainluy self-identified as a Jew, in any case. (No idea what else.)
He was born a Jew, by his death he had created a new covenant, a new message as set out by the disciples in the gospels and founded a new religion of Christianity based on his teachings
Oh I see. He was only a Christian after he had died.
Yes, he had not founded Christianity when he was born. When Jesus was born Christianity had not been founded and nor had Islam (Muhammad walked the earth after Jesus). The only Abrahamic religion at the time of Jesus' birth was Judaism which Jesus was born into
Thank you so much for this interesting information. Never let it be said that this site isn't educational.
Well, if is Sunday. Sunday schools for the workers!
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
I know that house prices have gone up, for those who own them. My point is that fewer people own houses now, compared to their parents’ generation 20 or 30 years ago, mostly because housebuilding hasn’t kept up with population growth.
2/3 still own them however and many more own houses compared to their grandparents' generation 50 years ago or their great grandparents' generation 100 years ago
But that's irrelevant to the point being made. What percentage of 35 year olds own their own house now compared to 20 years ago?
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
'Tis god's will.
This discussion gives me an opportunity to fire up a favourite word - antidisestablishmentarianism
It used to give my eldest daughter much joy to ask me my favourite word, hear it, attempt to say it, and collapse in laughter.
The youngest did a presentation for her RE class on it.
Who said learning had to be boring.
Edit: Church Tax is still a thing in Germany
And Sweden and Denmark I think
Denmark's Lutheran church is still the established church there with the monarch obliged to belong to it, 73% of Danes are at least nominal members of it. It is funded by a church tax for members and government subsidy
I guess they watch Nordic Noir to cheer themselves up.
- "Brenda, I don't want to lie to you anymore. All right? I'm not a doctor. I never went to medical school. I'm not a lawyer, or a Harvard graduate, or a Lutheran. Brenda, I ran away from home a year and a half ago when I was 16."
Yes, that's actually an intelligent discussion and another illustration of the puzzling extent to which it's possible to have critical voices on Russian TV. That isn't a new phenomenon - we've seen off-message discussions highlighted repeatedly over the last year or two, from rational people like this to truly bonkers commentators. To some extent that's presumably allowing some letting off steam, but it also illustrates the fact that power isn't as centralised and monolithic as we tend to think.
Which is probably a good thing, as it gives the possibility of less imperialist figures coming to the fore - but obviously it gives space for ultra-nationalists nutters as well.
I think that's a bit naïve. Putin wouldn't allow anyone broadcasting he didn't want to.
And that dialogue is very pro-war, as they always are.
The main critisicm of Putin is not from the anti war side in Russia.
Yes, but that's because all the anti war side have been locked up, or worse.
I don't think it is. Obviously it doesn't help that people can't speak out against the war freely but generally when a country goes to war their people become completely and utterly deranged for a while, and take at least a couple of years to come to their senses.
I'm trying to think of examples of wars that were unpopular in the country that started them when they started them. There are probably some but I'm drawing a blank.
You obviously missed all the huge protests in Moscow and St.Petersburg (amongst others) when the war got going, and the silent protest of the newsreader, all of whom were bundled off the streets, thrown in jail and the key thrown away - or worse.
The rest took the first flight out of Russia that they could.
Let's not pretend please that there isn't an anti-war opposition in Russia: there is; they've just been silenced.
I didn't say there wasn't an anti-war opposition, I agreed with @Pulpstar who said it's not where the main criticism of Putin is coming from. Wars always have a minority in opposition at the start, as Iraq did, but it's usually not very big. There were demos, but they weren't massive. You can get figures for arrests, people are quoting numbers like 15,000 total, which isn't nothing because risking arrest is a big deal, but it's a country of 150 *million*. Likewise people leaving the country between the start of the war and mobilization, it seems to be hundreds of thousands not millions, and some of those will be economic rather than political.
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
'Tis god's will.
This discussion gives me an opportunity to fire up a favourite word - antidisestablishmentarianism
It used to give my eldest daughter much joy to ask me my favourite word, hear it, attempt to say it, and collapse in laughter.
The youngest did a presentation for her RE class on it.
Who said learning had to be boring.
Edit: Church Tax is still a thing in Germany
But it is optional and if you choose to pay it you specify Roman Catholic or Evangelische Church (which is the equivalent to the CoE here). I don't pay it.
Except the Evanelische Church is Lutheran not Anglican, albeit both along with Calvinism were the original Protestant denominations which broke away from the Vatican and Roman Catholicism's monopoly on Christianity in the 16th century
Weren’t there Orthodox and Ethiopian churches in the 16th Century. The pope was supreme in Western Europe but not in the rest of the Christian world.
Well the Roman Catholic church had a monopoly in Western Europe on Christianity certainly.
Outside Europe there wasn't much Christianity in the 16th century (even if the first European colonies were starting to be founded by the Spanish in Mexico), even Palestine and Israel were under the Muslim Ottoman Empire.
Today of course it is the reverse, Christianity is stronger in Africa and Latin America and the USA than most of Europe
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
And of course there was not 1 Christian in Britain when Christ walked the earth
There wasn't a Christian anywhere!
Considering Jesus actually visited Glastonbury together with Joseph of Arimathea, I'm quite shocked by what HYUFD has said.
Even if they visited Britain, neither were native British but from Palestine and Judea
Oh. Just when I thought you weren't counting Jesus as a "Christian in Britain" because he was still alive, now I learn it's because he wasn't born here!
Nice to know that no one counts as being "in Britain" unless they are "native British".
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
I know that house prices have gone up, for those who own them. My point is that fewer people own houses now, compared to their parents’ generation 20 or 30 years ago, mostly because housebuilding hasn’t kept up with population growth.
2/3 still own them however and many more own houses compared to their grandparents' generation 50 years ago or their great grandparents' generation 100 years ago
But that's irrelevant to the point being made. What percentage of 35 year olds own their own house now compared to 20 years ago?
No it isn't, you can't just cut off history at one point to suit your argument. 100 years ago virtually no 35 year olds would have owned their own house (even the aristocracy would be waiting to inherit)
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
'Tis god's will.
This discussion gives me an opportunity to fire up a favourite word - antidisestablishmentarianism
It used to give my eldest daughter much joy to ask me my favourite word, hear it, attempt to say it, and collapse in laughter.
The youngest did a presentation for her RE class on it.
Who said learning had to be boring.
Edit: Church Tax is still a thing in Germany
But it is optional and if you choose to pay it you specify Roman Catholic or Evangelische Church (which is the equivalent to the CoE here). I don't pay it.
Except the Evanelische Church is Lutheran not Anglican, albeit both along with Calvinism were the original Protestant denominations which broke away from the Vatican and Roman Catholicism's monopoly on Christianity in the 16th century
Weren’t there Orthodox and Ethiopian churches in the 16th Century. The pope was supreme in Western Europe but not in the rest of the Christian world.
Well the Roman Catholic church had a monopoly in Western Europe on Christianity certainly.
Outside Europe there wasn't much Christianity in the 16th century (even if the first European colonies were starting to be founded by the Spanish in Mexico), even Palestine and Israel were under the Muslim Ottoman Empire.
Today of course it is the reverse, Christianity is stronger in Africa and Latin America and the USA than most of Europe
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Though He didn't have a listed building to maintain or a tea rota to staff.
Or the £8.7 billion of assets and investments the Church of England still has
Many of the churches assets were stolen from the people of this country. If we are looking at reparations then the church should be looking at reparations in the U.K. to the people,of,the U.K.
More correctly, owned by the Catholic Church [now Roman Catholic, not the Anglican splinter] in trust for the people.
There is plenty of case law that says the splitters don't get the assets, on the whole. See the Free Churches of Scotland passim.
We also need to look at reparations from the aristocracy, too, given what happened at the Dissolution. And the posh public schools such as Eton. Possibly the only institutions still functioning as their donors intended, mutatis mutandis for the modern context, are the Oxbridge colleges.
Eton and Winchester should be lumped in with the Oxbridge colleges as they are the original foundations still, along with their sister Oxbridge colleges so are also pre-reformation institutions.
Not exactly oriented to helping poor scholars primarily now, though; an issue also relevant to other foundations of the pre-Arnoldian era.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
I know that house prices have gone up, for those who own them. My point is that fewer people own houses now, compared to their parents’ generation 20 or 30 years ago, mostly because housebuilding hasn’t kept up with population growth.
2/3 still own them however and many more own houses compared to their grandparents' generation 50 years ago or their great grandparents' generation 100 years ago
My point is that the number is declining, and declining rapidly. Also, among those who do own property, many have large mortgages which are about to become even more unaffordable as fixed-rate deals come to an end.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Though He didn't have a listed building to maintain or a tea rota to staff.
Or the £8.7 billion of assets and investments the Church of England still has
Many of the churches assets were stolen from the people of this country. If we are looking at reparations then the church should be looking at reparations in the U.K. to the people,of,the U.K.
More correctly, owned by the Catholic Church [now Roman Catholic, not the Anglican splinter] in trust for the people.
There is plenty of case law that says the splitters don't get the assets, on the whole. See the Free Churches of Scotland passim.
We also need to look at reparations from the aristocracy, too, given what happened at the Dissolution. And the posh public schools such as Eton. Possibly the only institutions still functioning as their donors intended, mutatis mutandis for the modern context, are the Oxbridge colleges.
Most Oxbridge colleges have Roman Catholic services as well as the main Anglican ones.
Reflecting the fact that all pre 1531 Oxbridge college chapels would indeed have been Roman Catholic
All churches that predate 1531 were RC. Not many of those still standing hold RC services. I'm sure the reason why Oxford holds RC services in protestant chapels, is to reflect the christian diversity of their students and the ecumenical drive in the post war years in the UK.
I know of some rural Church of England churches which allow a Catholic priest to hold a Roman Catholic 8 30am mass once a month as there is no Roman Catholic church in the area and Catholics would otherwise have to attend a town or city some miles away to find a Catholic church.
We also have a few Roman Catholics at our rural Anglican church for the main Anglican service for the same reason
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
I know that house prices have gone up, for those who own them. My point is that fewer people own houses now, compared to their parents’ generation 20 or 30 years ago, mostly because housebuilding hasn’t kept up with population growth.
2/3 still own them however and many more own houses compared to their grandparents' generation 50 years ago or their great grandparents' generation 100 years ago
But that's irrelevant to the point being made. What percentage of 35 year olds own their own house now compared to 20 years ago?
No it isn't, you can't just cut off history at one point to suit your argument. 100 years ago virtually no 35 year olds would have owned their own house (even the aristocracy would be waiting to inherit)
You're not making sense. On your argument it would be valid to adduce the fact that 100% of cave-owners in Palaeolithic Cheddar were owner-occupiers and therefore Tory voters.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
A major factor in real house prices being lower in 1993 was that much of the country was just moving out of a perioid of prolonged negative equity because of the overheated market in the late 80's.
Another contribution to the morgage shock hitting harder now compared to 1993 was that more peope in the 90s had variable rate mortgages and most people in 1993 knew that base rates could rise rapidly as they had done in the 70's and 80's.
Now the UK has had a 12-15 year period of negligible base rates preceeded by 10 years of low interest rates. Many of today's mortgage holders just didn't realise that a quick rise to the higher end of normal interest rates was i) possible and ii) how much extra it would cost them.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
I know that house prices have gone up, for those who own them. My point is that fewer people own houses now, compared to their parents’ generation 20 or 30 years ago, mostly because housebuilding hasn’t kept up with population growth.
2/3 still own them however and many more own houses compared to their grandparents' generation 50 years ago or their great grandparents' generation 100 years ago
But that's irrelevant to the point being made. What percentage of 35 year olds own their own house now compared to 20 years ago?
No it isn't, you can't just cut off history at one point to suit your argument. 100 years ago virtually no 35 year olds would have owned their own house (even the aristocracy would be waiting to inherit)
Complete bollox - go and do some research on social history in the between war period.
Equally how do you think Metroland and other similar schemes worked where the expansion of the railways was funded by the selling of new houses around the recently built stations..
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
I know that house prices have gone up, for those who own them. My point is that fewer people own houses now, compared to their parents’ generation 20 or 30 years ago, mostly because housebuilding hasn’t kept up with population growth.
2/3 still own them however and many more own houses compared to their grandparents' generation 50 years ago or their great grandparents' generation 100 years ago
My point is that the number is declining, and declining rapidly. Also, among those who do own property, many have large mortgages which are about to become even more unaffordable as fixed-rate deals come to an end.
No it isn't, 2/3 of the population still own property.
I agree mortgage rates are a bigger problem but that was due to Truss' disastrous budget and high inflation post Covid and Ukraine war rather than house building levels
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
I know that house prices have gone up, for those who own them. My point is that fewer people own houses now, compared to their parents’ generation 20 or 30 years ago, mostly because housebuilding hasn’t kept up with population growth.
2/3 still own them however and many more own houses compared to their grandparents' generation 50 years ago or their great grandparents' generation 100 years ago
But that's irrelevant to the point being made. What percentage of 35 year olds own their own house now compared to 20 years ago?
No it isn't, you can't just cut off history at one point to suit your argument. 100 years ago virtually no 35 year olds would have owned their own house (even the aristocracy would be waiting to inherit)
You're not making sense. On your argument it would be valid to adduce the fact that 100% of cave-owners in Palaeolithic Cheddar were owner-occupiers and therefore Tory voters.
You can't prove they weren't though, where as HY will make a strong case that they were!
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
'Tis god's will.
This discussion gives me an opportunity to fire up a favourite word - antidisestablishmentarianism
It used to give my eldest daughter much joy to ask me my favourite word, hear it, attempt to say it, and collapse in laughter.
The youngest did a presentation for her RE class on it.
Who said learning had to be boring.
Edit: Church Tax is still a thing in Germany
But it is optional and if you choose to pay it you specify Roman Catholic or Evangelische Church (which is the equivalent to the CoE here). I don't pay it.
Except the Evanelische Church is Lutheran not Anglican, albeit both along with Calvinism were the original Protestant denominations which broke away from the Vatican and Roman Catholicism's monopoly on Christianity in the 16th century
Weren’t there Orthodox and Ethiopian churches in the 16th Century. The pope was supreme in Western Europe but not in the rest of the Christian world.
Well the Roman Catholic church had a monopoly in Western Europe on Christianity certainly.
Outside Europe there wasn't much Christianity in the 16th century (even if the first European colonies were starting to be founded by the Spanish in Mexico), even Palestine and Israel were under the Muslim Ottoman Empire.
Today of course it is the reverse, Christianity is stronger in Africa and Latin America and the USA than most of Europe
Ethiopia became Christian in 330 AD.
And Armenia since (traditionally) AD 301.
But I think you'll find there's very little to be gained by bandying facts with HYUFD.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
A major factor in real house prices being lower in 1993 was that much of the country was just moving out of a perioid of prolonged negative equity because of the overheated market in the late 80's.
Another contribution to the morgage shock hitting harder now compared to 1993 was that more peope in the 90s had variable rate mortgages and most people in 1993 knew that base rates could rise rapidly as they had done in the 70's and 80's.
Now the UK has had a 12-15 year period of negligible base rates preceeded by 10 years of low interest rates. Many of today's mortgage holders just didn't realise that a quick rise to the higher end of normal interest rates was i) possible and ii) how much extra it would cost them.
And stress testing if people can afford a 6% mortgage rate wasn't a great plan when interest rates are going to be hitting 7+%.
Someone yesterday was asking if it was worth taking a fixed rate at 5% or staying on the SVR at 7.5% in the hope that rates will reduce. Thinking about it getting a new mortgage at 5% seems rather risk free at the moment.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
I know that house prices have gone up, for those who own them. My point is that fewer people own houses now, compared to their parents’ generation 20 or 30 years ago, mostly because housebuilding hasn’t kept up with population growth.
2/3 still own them however and many more own houses compared to their grandparents' generation 50 years ago or their great grandparents' generation 100 years ago
But that's irrelevant to the point being made. What percentage of 35 year olds own their own house now compared to 20 years ago?
No it isn't, you can't just cut off history at one point to suit your argument. 100 years ago virtually no 35 year olds would have owned their own house (even the aristocracy would be waiting to inherit)
Complex bollox - go and do some research on social history in the between war period.
Equally how do you think Metroland and other similar schemes worked where the expansion of the railways was funded by the selling of new houses around the recently built stations..
The majority of the UK population rented until councll house sales in the 1970s and 1980s.
Even the expansion of the professional home owning middle class from the 1930s to 1960s still only saw home ownership rise to about 40-45% of the UK population
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
A major factor in real house prices being lower in 1993 was that much of the country was just moving out of a perioid of prolonged negative equity because of the overheated market in the late 80's.
Another contribution to the morgage shock hitting harder now compared to 1993 was that more peope in the 90s had variable rate mortgages and most people in 1993 knew that base rates could rise rapidly as they had done in the 70's and 80's.
Now the UK has had a 12-15 year period of negligible base rates preceeded by 10 years of low interest rates. Many of today's mortgage holders just didn't realise that a quick rise to the higher end of normal interest rates was i) possible and ii) how much extra it would cost them.
Exactly right. When Mrs C and I moved in together in the mid-1990s we put a fair bit of our disposable income into paying off our mortgage early - then, of course, a realistic option in contrast to today, which is also part of the problem. That was because we had seen what had happened under a Conservative government. That was, rather than max out on loans and holidays and upscaling. I did feel a bit annoyed when interest rates crashed - but not for long: we we were and remain secure.
We weren't relying on inheritance, either, unlike HYUFD's instant patent medicine for all economic ills.
(BTW it was also particularly irritating to have to pay higher interest rates because the inflated London and Home Counties housing market had boiled over - but not Scotland.)
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
'Tis god's will.
This discussion gives me an opportunity to fire up a favourite word - antidisestablishmentarianism
It used to give my eldest daughter much joy to ask me my favourite word, hear it, attempt to say it, and collapse in laughter.
The youngest did a presentation for her RE class on it.
Who said learning had to be boring.
Edit: Church Tax is still a thing in Germany
But it is optional and if you choose to pay it you specify Roman Catholic or Evangelische Church (which is the equivalent to the CoE here). I don't pay it.
Except the Evanelische Church is Lutheran not Anglican, albeit both along with Calvinism were the original Protestant denominations which broke away from the Vatican and Roman Catholicism's monopoly on Christianity in the 16th century
Weren’t there Orthodox and Ethiopian churches in the 16th Century. The pope was supreme in Western Europe but not in the rest of the Christian world.
Well the Roman Catholic church had a monopoly in Western Europe on Christianity certainly.
Outside Europe there wasn't much Christianity in the 16th century (even if the first European colonies were starting to be founded by the Spanish in Mexico), even Palestine and Israel were under the Muslim Ottoman Empire.
Today of course it is the reverse, Christianity is stronger in Africa and Latin America and the USA than most of Europe
Christian communities existed in most of what we call the Near East as well as in Europe. As well as Ethiopia there was a long established Christian community in Kerala, South India.
Rishi Rich and Hunt the C… appear to have no idea of the scale of the effect of mortgage rate rises on average earners, which are going to come due in the next year.
What can they do about it? Other than just give people money? (Which is an option.)
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
'Tis god's will.
This discussion gives me an opportunity to fire up a favourite word - antidisestablishmentarianism
It used to give my eldest daughter much joy to ask me my favourite word, hear it, attempt to say it, and collapse in laughter.
The youngest did a presentation for her RE class on it.
Who said learning had to be boring.
Edit: Church Tax is still a thing in Germany
But it is optional and if you choose to pay it you specify Roman Catholic or Evangelische Church (which is the equivalent to the CoE here). I don't pay it.
Except the Evangelische Church is Lutheran not Anglican, albeit both along with Calvinism were the original Protestant denominations which broke away from the Vatican and Roman Catholicism's monopoly on Christianity in the 16th century
Yes, I know, but my comment was to point out that the Evangelische Kirche in germany is nothing like the Evangelical churches in the UK (Of which I have had plenty of 1st hand experience). In style (rather than direct doctrine) it is much much more like the Church of England is in the UK (Of which I have also had plenty of 1st hand experience), with a siilar level of diversity between high and low churches/sevices.
At the risk of banality, either Prigozhin got what he wanted or something he expected to happen, didn't, and so he cut his losses. Curious to know which it is, and what he got, or what didn't happen.
Lukashenko seems to be important to Prigozhin. I can't see Putin naturally reaching out to him as a negotiator.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
Yes, restoring the medical pay board independence is the key demand for Consultants in the current strike ballot. Results out Tuesday, I think, first 48 hour strike on 20th July pencilled in.
I don't get a vote as not in the BMA.
Do you think they will vote to strike ? They won a key concession after the consultative ballot. Namely the pensions lifetime allowance being raised with the annual amount you can put in one increased to 60K.
Doctors are getting too greedy by far. They are among highest paid in teh country and blackmail whilst people die , live in agony is not pleasant.
I can't think of a more deserving group to get paid well. Years of hard studying and hard work, having to deal with all kinds of depressing stuff, but their work is incredibly valuable to the individual and society. If they aren't paid well, who should be?
They are well paid though already. obviously the shit bankers/finance geezers are well overpaid but compared to your average person , Doctors are at top of the tree already. Far better to pay those at the bottom who are being shat on. There are NO poor doctor's.
There certainly are poor doctors. If you're starting off on £30k and with £60k debts, are you rich?
Those are the junior doctors who are already striking.
We are discussing the consultants whose ballot closes this week and one of their main demands was the govt remove the lifetime allowance on pension pots. Duly done and increased the amount they could put into it in a year from 40K to 60K.
Junior Doctors starting out, in the scenario you paint, should certainly have something more done to help them. These are the ones I have some sympathy for.
For example a suggestion was made to forgive a portion of their debt for every year they rema8ned in the NHS.
That’s long been a suggestion of mine - along with teachers.
While employed, the employer takes on any repayments.
Forgive in yearly increments - say over 8 years. Set it up so the amount forgiven is heavily loaded to the end of the 8 years. So perhaps a 3rd of the debt is paid off in the last year.
If you get someone in a career for 8 years, you’ be probably got them for life.
Mrs C came in earlier and saw the discussion. She points out that junior doctors are by definition on a series of short term contracts and can't settle - this is financially inefficient and expensive. They also have to buy their own cars bevcause of overtime/night/shiuft work.
Rishi Rich and Hunt the C… appear to have no idea of the scale of the effect of mortgage rate rises on average earners, which are going to come due in the next year.
What can they do about it? Other than just give people money? (Which is an option.)
Nothing because they can't give people money as it would encourage a whole set of stupid situations.
As an example I currently in theory have an SVR rate mortgage but because it's 100% offset I'm not concerned by it. Now start reducing the interest rate I'm paying and I will shift the money elsewhere because it may be profitable to save it instead.
Edit to add - the 5% mortgage rate I referenced below seems to have disappeared since Thursday. A 66% 5 year fixed rate mortgage from Natwest is now 5.49%...
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
'Tis god's will.
This discussion gives me an opportunity to fire up a favourite word - antidisestablishmentarianism
It used to give my eldest daughter much joy to ask me my favourite word, hear it, attempt to say it, and collapse in laughter.
The youngest did a presentation for her RE class on it.
Who said learning had to be boring.
Edit: Church Tax is still a thing in Germany
But it is optional and if you choose to pay it you specify Roman Catholic or Evangelische Church (which is the equivalent to the CoE here). I don't pay it.
Except the Evanelische Church is Lutheran not Anglican, albeit both along with Calvinism were the original Protestant denominations which broke away from the Vatican and Roman Catholicism's monopoly on Christianity in the 16th century
Weren’t there Orthodox and Ethiopian churches in the 16th Century. The pope was supreme in Western Europe but not in the rest of the Christian world.
Well the Roman Catholic church had a monopoly in Western Europe on Christianity certainly.
Outside Europe there wasn't much Christianity in the 16th century (even if the first European colonies were starting to be founded by the Spanish in Mexico), even Palestine and Israel were under the Muslim Ottoman Empire.
Today of course it is the reverse, Christianity is stronger in Africa and Latin America and the USA than most of Europe
Christian communities existed in most of what we call the Near East as well as in Europe. As well as Ethiopia there was a long established Christian community in Kerala, South India.
Was? There still is! 18% of Kerala's population is Christian, more than 6.4 million in 2011.
HYUFD would probably point out that St Thomas visited Kerala as early as 52 AD.
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
'Tis god's will.
This discussion gives me an opportunity to fire up a favourite word - antidisestablishmentarianism
It used to give my eldest daughter much joy to ask me my favourite word, hear it, attempt to say it, and collapse in laughter.
The youngest did a presentation for her RE class on it.
Who said learning had to be boring.
Edit: Church Tax is still a thing in Germany
But it is optional and if you choose to pay it you specify Roman Catholic or Evangelische Church (which is the equivalent to the CoE here). I don't pay it.
Except the Evangelische Church is Lutheran not Anglican, albeit both along with Calvinism were the original Protestant denominations which broke away from the Vatican and Roman Catholicism's monopoly on Christianity in the 16th century
Yes, I know, but my comment was to point out that the Evangelische Kirche in germany is nothing like the Evangelical churches in the UK (Of which I have had plenty of 1st hand experience). In style (rather than direct doctrine) it is much much more like the Church of England is in the UK (Of which I have also had plenty of 1st hand experience), with a siilar level of diversity between high and low churches/sevices.
I would say there are more high church Anglicans than high church Lutherans but yes they are probably closer to each other overall on issues like homosexuality and divorce than more hardline evangelical Baptist or Pentecostal (or Free Church) churches would be
Rishi Rich and Hunt the C… appear to have no idea of the scale of the effect of mortgage rate rises on average earners, which are going to come due in the next year.
What can they do about it? Other than just give people money? (Which is an option.)
Not give a shit? Their OAP voters will be raking it in* in their cash savings accounts.
*Not really. Because oif inflation and fiscal drag on the inco,me tax saving allowance. But the old farts will think they are.
Rishi Rich and Hunt the C… appear to have no idea of the scale of the effect of mortgage rate rises on average earners, which are going to come due in the next year.
What can they do about it? Other than just give people money? (Which is an option.)
Cut income taxes, and reduce government spending to match.
The current problem they have, is less about what to actually do, and more about they way they speak. They appear not to give a sh!t that millions of people are going to be several hundred quid a month worse off, as evidenced by the PM’s interview this morning.
Neither Sunak nor Hunt has ever had to manage a household budget, in which there’s a high probability of having too much month left at the end of the money.
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
'Tis god's will.
This discussion gives me an opportunity to fire up a favourite word - antidisestablishmentarianism
It used to give my eldest daughter much joy to ask me my favourite word, hear it, attempt to say it, and collapse in laughter.
The youngest did a presentation for her RE class on it.
Who said learning had to be boring.
Edit: Church Tax is still a thing in Germany
But it is optional and if you choose to pay it you specify Roman Catholic or Evangelische Church (which is the equivalent to the CoE here). I don't pay it.
Except the Evanelische Church is Lutheran not Anglican, albeit both along with Calvinism were the original Protestant denominations which broke away from the Vatican and Roman Catholicism's monopoly on Christianity in the 16th century
Weren’t there Orthodox and Ethiopian churches in the 16th Century. The pope was supreme in Western Europe but not in the rest of the Christian world.
Well the Roman Catholic church had a monopoly in Western Europe on Christianity certainly.
Outside Europe there wasn't much Christianity in the 16th century (even if the first European colonies were starting to be founded by the Spanish in Mexico), even Palestine and Israel were under the Muslim Ottoman Empire.
Today of course it is the reverse, Christianity is stronger in Africa and Latin America and the USA than most of Europe
Christian communities existed in most of what we call the Near East as well as in Europe. As well as Ethiopia there was a long established Christian community in Kerala, South India.
I said 'wasn't much' not 'none at all' outside Europe.
However probably 90% of Christians were in Europe in the 16th century
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
I know that house prices have gone up, for those who own them. My point is that fewer people own houses now, compared to their parents’ generation 20 or 30 years ago, mostly because housebuilding hasn’t kept up with population growth.
2/3 still own them however and many more own houses compared to their grandparents' generation 50 years ago or their great grandparents' generation 100 years ago
But that's irrelevant to the point being made. What percentage of 35 year olds own their own house now compared to 20 years ago?
No it isn't, you can't just cut off history at one point to suit your argument. 100 years ago virtually no 35 year olds would have owned their own house (even the aristocracy would be waiting to inherit)
You're not making sense. On your argument it would be valid to adduce the fact that 100% of cave-owners in Palaeolithic Cheddar were owner-occupiers and therefore Tory voters.
You can't prove they weren't though, where as HY will make a strong case that they were!
Rishi Rich and Hunt the C… appear to have no idea of the scale of the effect of mortgage rate rises on average earners, which are going to come due in the next year.
What can they do about it? Other than just give people money? (Which is an option.)
Cut income taxes, and reduce government spending to match.
The current problem they have, is less about what to actually do, and more about they way they speak. They appear not to give a sh!t that millions of people are going to be several hundred quid a month worse off, as evidenced by the PM’s interview this morning.
Neither Sunak nor Hunt has ever had to manage a household budget, in which there’s a high probability of having too much month left at the end of the money.
Problem is there is little Government expenditure that can be cut - and I wish I was kidding here but I literally can't think of any essential service (education, health, justice, social care) that hasn't already been cut to the bone.
Rishi Rich and Hunt the C… appear to have no idea of the scale of the effect of mortgage rate rises on average earners, which are going to come due in the next year.
What can they do about it? Other than just give people money? (Which is an option.)
Cut income taxes, and reduce government spending to match.
The current problem they have, is less about what to actually do, and more about they way they speak. They appear not to give a sh!t that millions of people are going to be several hundred quid a month worse off, as evidenced by the PM’s interview this morning.
Neither Sunak nor Hunt has ever had to manage a household budget, in which there’s a high probability of having too much month left at the end of the money.
Problem is there is little Government expenditure that can be cut - and I wish I was kidding here but I literally can't think of any essential service (education, health, justice, social care) that hasn't already been cut to the bone.
And as discussed yesterday the inefficiency in tax and customs collection is reducing the income element, while Brexit means more spending on hitherto pooled areas.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
That is very true and the present spending is surprising in view of the COL crisis
Savers have already been penalised over the last decade of low interest rates. There has been little incentive to squirrel money away given the returns.
Higher interest rates don’t only take money out of the econ9my from borrowers but also fr9m savers.
We need a balance between spend and save. People saving for their retirement and latter years is a benefit as it reduces what the govt needs to pay out in terms of additional benefits.
It also makes sense to have six months salary saved in case of unemployment and savings for emergencies.
Saving is not all bad.
To be honest I'm struggling to think of a time where cash savings have beat inflation in the last 15 years regardless of interest rate. I think you'd have consistently lost money in real terms almost all of the time. And NSI premium bonds are almost always shit.
It's stocks and shares ISAs/pensions and assets where you can save to generate a real return, or betting of course.
The KeirStarmerNextPM bond maturing Oct 24 is yielding 20% on your principal. Not too shabby.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
I know that house prices have gone up, for those who own them. My point is that fewer people own houses now, compared to their parents’ generation 20 or 30 years ago, mostly because housebuilding hasn’t kept up with population growth.
2/3 still own them however and many more own houses compared to their grandparents' generation 50 years ago or their great grandparents' generation 100 years ago
But that's irrelevant to the point being made. What percentage of 35 year olds own their own house now compared to 20 years ago?
No it isn't, you can't just cut off history at one point to suit your argument. 100 years ago virtually no 35 year olds would have owned their own house (even the aristocracy would be waiting to inherit)
You're not making sense. On your argument it would be valid to adduce the fact that 100% of cave-owners in Palaeolithic Cheddar were owner-occupiers and therefore Tory voters.
You can't prove they weren't though, where as HY will make a strong case that they were!
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
I know that house prices have gone up, for those who own them. My point is that fewer people own houses now, compared to their parents’ generation 20 or 30 years ago, mostly because housebuilding hasn’t kept up with population growth.
2/3 still own them however and many more own houses compared to their grandparents' generation 50 years ago or their great grandparents' generation 100 years ago
But that's irrelevant to the point being made. What percentage of 35 year olds own their own house now compared to 20 years ago?
No it isn't, you can't just cut off history at one point to suit your argument. 100 years ago virtually no 35 year olds would have owned their own house (even the aristocracy would be waiting to inherit)
You're not making sense. On your argument it would be valid to adduce the fact that 100% of cave-owners in Palaeolithic Cheddar were owner-occupiers and therefore Tory voters.
You can't prove they weren't though, where as HY will make a strong case that they were!
Lib Dems appear to have a problem in Somerton and Frome, their candidate had a terrible interview with the Guardian. How will she fare with the Mail or even a panel debate.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
A major factor in real house prices being lower in 1993 was that much of the country was just moving out of a perioid of prolonged negative equity because of the overheated market in the late 80's.
Another contribution to the morgage shock hitting harder now compared to 1993 was that more peope in the 90s had variable rate mortgages and most people in 1993 knew that base rates could rise rapidly as they had done in the 70's and 80's.
Now the UK has had a 12-15 year period of negligible base rates preceeded by 10 years of low interest rates. Many of today's mortgage holders just didn't realise that a quick rise to the higher end of normal interest rates was i) possible and ii) how much extra it would cost them.
And stress testing if people can afford a 6% mortgage rate wasn't a great plan when interest rates are going to be hitting 7+%.
Someone yesterday was asking if it was worth taking a fixed rate at 5% or staying on the SVR at 7.5% in the hope that rates will reduce. Thinking about it getting a new mortgage at 5% seems rather risk free at the moment.
To me it feels like a no brainer to take a 2 year fix at the moment. There are likely to be rate rises to come and if things start to come down I wouldn’t have thought it would be til mid 2024 at the earliest now (and they will come down cautiously).
It might not be the same calculation in say December/January.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Person A results in more tax than Person B, even under my proposal.
Person A faces alcohol duty, VAT etc on everything he spends as well as NNDR, Corporation Tax, Employers NI, Employee NI, Income Tax etc on the money they spent as it circulates.
I'll turn the question on its head. Why should the government want to discourage people working for a living?
People who work for a living should be treated as fairly as people who are relying upon the work of others, rather than themselves.
Rishi Rich and Hunt the C… appear to have no idea of the scale of the effect of mortgage rate rises on average earners, which are going to come due in the next year.
What can they do about it? Other than just give people money? (Which is an option.)
Cut income taxes, and reduce government spending to match.
The current problem they have, is less about what to actually do, and more about they way they speak. They appear not to give a sh!t that millions of people are going to be several hundred quid a month worse off, as evidenced by the PM’s interview this morning.
Neither Sunak nor Hunt has ever had to manage a household budget, in which there’s a high probability of having too much month left at the end of the money.
Problem is there is little Government expenditure that can be cut - and I wish I was kidding here but I literally can't think of any essential service (education, health, justice, social care) that hasn't already been cut to the bone.
Which is why there needs to be an honest and open discussion about the scope of government.
The political options are:
1. Accept that we all need to pay more to do the same. 2. Reduce government spending, by reducing scope of government activity. 3. Tax the “rich” until the pips squeak, where “rich” is the top 25% by income or ‘“wealth”, and generates many adverse effects.
Rishi Rich and Hunt the C… appear to have no idea of the scale of the effect of mortgage rate rises on average earners, which are going to come due in the next year.
What can they do about it? Other than just give people money? (Which is an option.)
Cut income taxes, and reduce government spending to match.
The current problem they have, is less about what to actually do, and more about they way they speak. They appear not to give a sh!t that millions of people are going to be several hundred quid a month worse off, as evidenced by the PM’s interview this morning.
Neither Sunak nor Hunt has ever had to manage a household budget, in which there’s a high probability of having too much month left at the end of the money.
Problem is there is little Government expenditure that can be cut - and I wish I was kidding here but I literally can't think of any essential service (education, health, justice, social care) that hasn't already been cut to the bone.
Which is why there needs to be an honest and open discussion about the scope of government.
The political options are:
1. Accept that we all need to pay more to do the same. 2. Reduce government spending, by reducing scope of government activity. 3. Tax the “rich” until the pips squeak, where “rich” is the top 25% by income or ‘“wealth”, and generates many adverse effects.
If 3 is an option than 3 will always be the default option.
And Osborne and co have been implementing that plan by stealth on younger "rich" people by penalising them at the £50,000 and £100,000 wage points.
Rishi Rich and Hunt the C… appear to have no idea of the scale of the effect of mortgage rate rises on average earners, which are going to come due in the next year.
What can they do about it? Other than just give people money? (Which is an option.)
Cut income taxes, and reduce government spending to match.
The current problem they have, is less about what to actually do, and more about they way they speak. They appear not to give a sh!t that millions of people are going to be several hundred quid a month worse off, as evidenced by the PM’s interview this morning.
Neither Sunak nor Hunt has ever had to manage a household budget, in which there’s a high probability of having too much month left at the end of the money.
Problem is there is little Government expenditure that can be cut - and I wish I was kidding here but I literally can't think of any essential service (education, health, justice, social care) that hasn't already been cut to the bone.
Which is why there needs to be an honest and open discussion about the scope of government.
The political options are:
1. Accept that we all need to pay more to do the same. 2. Reduce government spending, by reducing scope of government activity. 3. Tax the “rich” until the pips squeak, where “rich” is the top 25% by income or ‘“wealth”, and generates many adverse effects.
We do need that honest debate, yes. And to keep YOU honest number 2 should also carry the warning of 'generates many adverse effects'.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
And of course there was not 1 Christian in Britain when Christ walked the earth
There wasn't a Christian anywhere!
Considering Jesus actually visited Glastonbury together with Joseph of Arimathea, I'm quite shocked by what HYUFD has said.
Who was headlining?
Glastonbury is the weirdest town I've ever been to. Even Royston Vazey is more normal.
If I went into the local parish church, I'd expect to see the cross upside down on the altar.
Rishi Rich and Hunt the C… appear to have no idea of the scale of the effect of mortgage rate rises on average earners, which are going to come due in the next year.
What can they do about it? Other than just give people money? (Which is an option.)
Cut income taxes, and reduce government spending to match.
The current problem they have, is less about what to actually do, and more about they way they speak. They appear not to give a sh!t that millions of people are going to be several hundred quid a month worse off, as evidenced by the PM’s interview this morning.
Neither Sunak nor Hunt has ever had to manage a household budget, in which there’s a high probability of having too much month left at the end of the money.
Problem is there is little Government expenditure that can be cut - and I wish I was kidding here but I literally can't think of any essential service (education, health, justice, social care) that hasn't already been cut to the bone.
As has oft been pointed out, Liz Truss was actually correct about the solution to the issue - we need to grow our way out of this. The issue is how we do it. Truss’ fatal error was suggesting this would all be fixed by huge tax cuts and unbalanced budgets - big bang economics. In actual fact it’s going to be steady, incremental change (because we can’t afford anything else) and careful investment. That does mean that things won’t get better overnight, and in fact quite a lot could get worse still in our public services.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Person A results in more tax than Person B, even under my proposal.
Person A faces alcohol duty, VAT etc on everything he spends as well as NNDR, Corporation Tax, Employers NI, Employee NI, Income Tax etc on the money they spent as it circulates.
I'll turn the question on its head. Why should the government want to discourage people working for a living?
People who work for a living should be treated as fairly as people who are relying upon the work of others, rather than themselves.
A modest suggestion: you could add or rather deduct the IHT foregone by HMG in case 2 - in case 1 it would be gained by HMG in the form of the CGT paid by the chap blowing his savings and selling off his shares to fund the Nyetimber.
Rishi Rich and Hunt the C… appear to have no idea of the scale of the effect of mortgage rate rises on average earners, which are going to come due in the next year.
What can they do about it? Other than just give people money? (Which is an option.)
Cut income taxes, and reduce government spending to match.
The current problem they have, is less about what to actually do, and more about they way they speak. They appear not to give a sh!t that millions of people are going to be several hundred quid a month worse off, as evidenced by the PM’s interview this morning.
Neither Sunak nor Hunt has ever had to manage a household budget, in which there’s a high probability of having too much month left at the end of the money.
Problem is there is little Government expenditure that can be cut - and I wish I was kidding here but I literally can't think of any essential service (education, health, justice, social care) that hasn't already been cut to the bone.
Which is why there needs to be an honest and open discussion about the scope of government.
The political options are:
1. Accept that we all need to pay more to do the same. 2. Reduce government spending, by reducing scope of government activity. 3. Tax the “rich” until the pips squeak, where “rich” is the top 25% by income or ‘“wealth”, and generates many adverse effects.
If 3 is an option than 3 will always be the default option.
And Osborne and co have been implementing that plan by stealth on younger "rich" people by penalising them at the £50,000 and £100,000 wage points.
Yes, the practicalities of actually increasing taxes more on this group, generate a lot of adverse effects. The seriously wealthy can plan around most taxes, and with some exceptions (prem league footballists) are internationally mobile.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
Yes, restoring the medical pay board independence is the key demand for Consultants in the current strike ballot. Results out Tuesday, I think, first 48 hour strike on 20th July pencilled in.
I don't get a vote as not in the BMA.
Do you think they will vote to strike ? They won a key concession after the consultative ballot. Namely the pensions lifetime allowance being raised with the annual amount you can put in one increased to 60K.
Doctors are getting too greedy by far. They are among highest paid in teh country and blackmail whilst people die , live in agony is not pleasant.
I can't think of a more deserving group to get paid well. Years of hard studying and hard work, having to deal with all kinds of depressing stuff, but their work is incredibly valuable to the individual and society. If they aren't paid well, who should be?
They are well paid though already. obviously the shit bankers/finance geezers are well overpaid but compared to your average person , Doctors are at top of the tree already. Far better to pay those at the bottom who are being shat on. There are NO poor doctor's.
There certainly are poor doctors. If you're starting off on £30k and with £60k debts, are you rich?
Those are the junior doctors who are already striking.
We are discussing the consultants whose ballot closes this week and one of their main demands was the govt remove the lifetime allowance on pension pots. Duly done and increased the amount they could put into it in a year from 40K to 60K.
Junior Doctors starting out, in the scenario you paint, should certainly have something more done to help them. These are the ones I have some sympathy for.
For example a suggestion was made to forgive a portion of their debt for every year they rema8ned in the NHS.
That’s long been a suggestion of mine - along with teachers.
While employed, the employer takes on any repayments.
Forgive in yearly increments - say over 8 years. Set it up so the amount forgiven is heavily loaded to the end of the 8 years. So perhaps a 3rd of the debt is paid off in the last year.
If you get someone in a career for 8 years, you’ be probably got them for life.
I wonder is there a large share of NHS junior doctors with student debt for a British university course. At any rate, if you give people an implicit pay cut after year 8, I'd expect a rapid development of a norm that people leave at year 8.
I have suggested something similar in the past. We spend serious money training a doctor and the forgiveness of fees is a good way of getting that back by ensuring that they "pay back" to the NHS the training that they have been given.
But I think any such scheme has to be tapered rather than cliff ended for the reasons that you have stated. There is also the problem of do doctors without UK University debt get something in lieu? As always the devil is in the details but we need to rebalance the package for doctors so that they have more benefits up front, whilst working for the NHS, but without bankrupting the country.
At the risk of banality, either Prigozhin got what he wanted or something he expected to happen, didn't, and so he cut his losses. Curious to know which it is, and what he got, or what didn't happen.
Lukashenko seems to be important to Prigozhin. I can't see Putin naturally reaching out to him as a negotiator.
While purely speculative, this has a ring of truth about it:
In short, someone with a lot of power allowed Prighozin to get as far as he did, and used the chaos to weaken Putin's position. That someone was also able to use the FSB to get Prighozin to stop.
Supposedly Putin and Patrushev had an almighty falling out last week over Putin's plan to give Kadyrov control over parts of Russia...
WRT IHT, it was certainly a mistake to push up main residence relief to £1m. But, we are where we are.
I'd scrap the exemptions for business property relief, farmland, woodland, works of art, country houses etc., and end the practice whereby life assurance and pensions can be placed in trust for named individuals, rather than forming part of the estate. All of those allowances are tax shelters, which inflate asset prices for that very reason.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
Yes, restoring the medical pay board independence is the key demand for Consultants in the current strike ballot. Results out Tuesday, I think, first 48 hour strike on 20th July pencilled in.
I don't get a vote as not in the BMA.
Do you think they will vote to strike ? They won a key concession after the consultative ballot. Namely the pensions lifetime allowance being raised with the annual amount you can put in one increased to 60K.
Doctors are getting too greedy by far. They are among highest paid in teh country and blackmail whilst people die , live in agony is not pleasant.
I can't think of a more deserving group to get paid well. Years of hard studying and hard work, having to deal with all kinds of depressing stuff, but their work is incredibly valuable to the individual and society. If they aren't paid well, who should be?
They are well paid though already. obviously the shit bankers/finance geezers are well overpaid but compared to your average person , Doctors are at top of the tree already. Far better to pay those at the bottom who are being shat on. There are NO poor doctor's.
There certainly are poor doctors. If you're starting off on £30k and with £60k debts, are you rich?
Those are the junior doctors who are already striking.
We are discussing the consultants whose ballot closes this week and one of their main demands was the govt remove the lifetime allowance on pension pots. Duly done and increased the amount they could put into it in a year from 40K to 60K.
Junior Doctors starting out, in the scenario you paint, should certainly have something more done to help them. These are the ones I have some sympathy for.
For example a suggestion was made to forgive a portion of their debt for every year they rema8ned in the NHS.
That’s long been a suggestion of mine - along with teachers.
While employed, the employer takes on any repayments.
Forgive in yearly increments - say over 8 years. Set it up so the amount forgiven is heavily loaded to the end of the 8 years. So perhaps a 3rd of the debt is paid off in the last year.
If you get someone in a career for 8 years, you’ be probably got them for life.
I wonder is there a large share of NHS junior doctors with student debt for a British university course. At any rate, if you give people an implicit pay cut after year 8, I'd expect a rapid development of a norm that people leave at year 8.
I have suggested something similar in the past. We spend serious money training a doctor and the forgiveness of fees is a good way of getting that back by ensuring that they "pay back" to the NHS the training that they have been given.
But I think any such scheme has to be tapered rather than cliff ended for the reasons that you have stated. There is also the problem of do doctors without UK University debt get something in lieu? As always the devil is in the details but we need to rebalance the package for doctors so that they have more benefits up front, whilst working for the NHS, but without bankrupting the country.
One issue is the reduction or loss in hospital accommodation for junior doctors (and nurses too of course) in recent years. A real problem given their short term contracts in sometimes unsocial areas/times.
WRT IHT, it was certainly a mistake to push up main residence relief to £1m. But, we are where we are.
I'd scrap the exemptions for business property relief, farmland, woodland, works of art, country houses etc., and end the practice whereby life assurance and pensions can be placed in trust for named individuals, rather than forming part of the estate. All of those allowances are tax shelters, which inflate asset prices for that very reason.
No it wasn't, without that IHT main residence relief policy announced at the 2007 Tory conference by Osborne there would have been no Tory poll bounce post conference and Brown would have called a snap general election in late 2007 and probably won a small majority. Cameron may even then have been replaced as Conservative leader by David Davis.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
And of course there was not 1 Christian in Britain when Christ walked the earth
There wasn't a Christian anywhere!
Considering Jesus actually visited Glastonbury together with Joseph of Arimathea, I'm quite shocked by what HYUFD has said.
Jesus certainluy self-identified as a Jew, in any case. (No idea what else.)
He was born a Jew, by his death he had created a new covenant, a new message as set out by the disciples in the gospels and founded a new religion of Christianity based on his teachings
Oh I see. He was only a Christian after he had died.
Yes, he had not founded Christianity when he was born. When Jesus was born Christianity had not been founded and nor had Islam (Muhammad walked the earth after Jesus). The only Abrahamic religion at the time of Jesus' birth was Judaism which Jesus was born into
Rishi Rich and Hunt the C… appear to have no idea of the scale of the effect of mortgage rate rises on average earners, which are going to come due in the next year.
What can they do about it? Other than just give people money? (Which is an option.)
Cut income taxes, and reduce government spending to match.
The current problem they have, is less about what to actually do, and more about they way they speak. They appear not to give a sh!t that millions of people are going to be several hundred quid a month worse off, as evidenced by the PM’s interview this morning.
Neither Sunak nor Hunt has ever had to manage a household budget, in which there’s a high probability of having too much month left at the end of the money.
Problem is there is little Government expenditure that can be cut - and I wish I was kidding here but I literally can't think of any essential service (education, health, justice, social care) that hasn't already been cut to the bone.
The problem is productivity. Improving services is seen in terms of hiring more people.
Rishi Rich and Hunt the C… appear to have no idea of the scale of the effect of mortgage rate rises on average earners, which are going to come due in the next year.
What can they do about it? Other than just give people money? (Which is an option.)
Cut income taxes, and reduce government spending to match.
The current problem they have, is less about what to actually do, and more about they way they speak. They appear not to give a sh!t that millions of people are going to be several hundred quid a month worse off, as evidenced by the PM’s interview this morning.
Neither Sunak nor Hunt has ever had to manage a household budget, in which there’s a high probability of having too much month left at the end of the money.
Problem is there is little Government expenditure that can be cut - and I wish I was kidding here but I literally can't think of any essential service (education, health, justice, social care) that hasn't already been cut to the bone.
Which is why there needs to be an honest and open discussion about the scope of government.
The political options are:
1. Accept that we all need to pay more to do the same. 2. Reduce government spending, by reducing scope of government activity. 3. Tax the “rich” until the pips squeak, where “rich” is the top 25% by income or ‘“wealth”, and generates many adverse effects.
We do need that honest debate, yes. And to keep YOU honest number 2 should also carry the warning of 'generates many adverse effects'.
WRT IHT, it was certainly a mistake to push up main residence relief to £1m. But, we are where we are.
I'd scrap the exemptions for business property relief, farmland, woodland, works of art, country houses etc., and end the practice whereby life assurance and pensions can be placed in trust for named individuals, rather than forming part of the estate. All of those allowances are tax shelters, which inflate asset prices for that very reason.
Also remove the way in which political parties are treated as if charities (ie bequests to them are immune to IHT).
Lib Dems appear to have a problem in Somerton and Frome, their candidate had a terrible interview with the Guardian. How will she fare with the Mail or even a panel debate.
As I said yesterday the LD by election candidate there looks like she may not even be ready to be a town or district councillor let alone an MP yet on the basis of that interview. However she will still likely win on the polls and LD by election machine
Rishi Rich and Hunt the C… appear to have no idea of the scale of the effect of mortgage rate rises on average earners, which are going to come due in the next year.
What can they do about it? Other than just give people money? (Which is an option.)
Cut income taxes, and reduce government spending to match.
The current problem they have, is less about what to actually do, and more about they way they speak. They appear not to give a sh!t that millions of people are going to be several hundred quid a month worse off, as evidenced by the PM’s interview this morning.
Neither Sunak nor Hunt has ever had to manage a household budget, in which there’s a high probability of having too much month left at the end of the money.
Problem is there is little Government expenditure that can be cut - and I wish I was kidding here but I literally can't think of any essential service (education, health, justice, social care) that hasn't already been cut to the bone.
The problem is productivity. Improving services is seen in terms of hiring more people.
Problem is there isn't enough people like you and me around - and no public sector department can justify the cost of hiring us for a few years to automate pointless work away...
WRT IHT, it was certainly a mistake to push up main residence relief to £1m. But, we are where we are.
I'd scrap the exemptions for business property relief, farmland, woodland, works of art, country houses etc., and end the practice whereby life assurance and pensions can be placed in trust for named individuals, rather than forming part of the estate. All of those allowances are tax shelters, which inflate asset prices for that very reason.
No it wasn't, without that IHT main residence relief policy announced at the 2007 Tory conference by Osborne there would have been no Tory poll bounce post conference and Brown would have called a snap general election in late 2007 and probably won a small majority. Cameron may even then have been replaced as Conservative leader by David Davis.
It was not introduced by Osborne until 2015. What you're thinking of is the transferable nil rate band (which only reflected good IHT planning in the first place). There was never any need to to increase main residence relief to £1m. An allowance of £650,000 was quite enough to inherit a good sum.
Meanwhile, for complicated reasons I went to church this morning. Small village, fewer than 10 people in the congregation.
Some observations:
The vicar managed to name check three other religions, all for derogatory reasons (Jews, Brahmins, Muslims), he bewailed the fact that Christians can't wear crucifixes to work when Muslims can wear hijabs, and said that Jesus didn't come to bring peace and explained why this was.
So an interesting encounter with parochial muscular Christianity in this country.
WRT IHT, it was certainly a mistake to push up main residence relief to £1m. But, we are where we are.
I'd scrap the exemptions for business property relief, farmland, woodland, works of art, country houses etc., and end the practice whereby life assurance and pensions can be placed in trust for named individuals, rather than forming part of the estate. All of those allowances are tax shelters, which inflate asset prices for that very reason.
Also remove the way in which political parties are treated as if charities (ie bequests to them are immune to IHT).
You guys must be exhausted after such a busy day on the battlefields of Eastern Europe. On some much deserved RnR I hope now.
Hey, @TOPPING , don't worry. Me and my squad of ultimate Labour Fans will protect you! Check it out! Independently targeting particle beam phalanx. Vwap! Fry half a Parliamentary constituency with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phased plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got posters, dodgy bar charts...
Then add National Insurance to unearned income, while increasing income tax allowances. And, scrap the triple lock.
50% of the population will inherit substantial amounts, but work should pay for the 50% who will not inherit such sums.
I'm 56 and will likely inherit a lot of money over the next decade, but what use is to me now?
It is down to corporations to increase pay for those in the bottom 50% of earners, beyond ensuring a reasonable minimum wage that is not the role of government.
Yes government can cut tax for lower earners and put some funds in to subsidise apprenticeships and skills training to make workers more productive and higher paid but it is corporations who are responsible for making their profits and distributing them fairly amongst their workforce
WRT IHT, it was certainly a mistake to push up main residence relief to £1m. But, we are where we are.
I'd scrap the exemptions for business property relief, farmland, woodland, works of art, country houses etc., and end the practice whereby life assurance and pensions can be placed in trust for named individuals, rather than forming part of the estate. All of those allowances are tax shelters, which inflate asset prices for that very reason.
No it wasn't, without that IHT main residence relief policy announced at the 2007 Tory conference by Osborne there would have been no Tory poll bounce post conference and Brown would have called a snap general election in late 2007 and probably won a small majority. Cameron may even then have been replaced as Conservative leader by David Davis.
It was not introduced by Osborne until 2015. What you're thinking of is the transferable nil rate band (which only reflected good IHT planning in the first place). There was never any need to to increase main residence relief to £1m. An allowance of £650,000 was quite enough to inherit a good sum.
The average property price in London is now over £650k at £737,512
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Though He didn't have a listed building to maintain or a tea rota to staff.
Or the £8.7 billion of assets and investments the Church of England still has
Many of the churches assets were stolen from the people of this country. If we are looking at reparations then the church should be looking at reparations in the U.K. to the people,of,the U.K.
More correctly, owned by the Catholic Church [now Roman Catholic, not the Anglican splinter] in trust for the people.
There is plenty of case law that says the splitters don't get the assets, on the whole. See the Free Churches of Scotland passim.
We also need to look at reparations from the aristocracy, too, given what happened at the Dissolution. And the posh public schools such as Eton. Possibly the only institutions still functioning as their donors intended, mutatis mutandis for the modern context, are the Oxbridge colleges.
Most Oxbridge colleges have Roman Catholic services as well as the main Anglican ones.
Reflecting the fact that all pre 1531 Oxbridge college chapels would indeed have been Roman Catholic
All churches that predate 1531 were RC. Not many of those still standing hold RC services. I'm sure the reason why Oxford holds RC services in protestant chapels, is to reflect the christian diversity of their students and the ecumenical drive in the post war years in the UK.
My college, Trinity College Oxford, was a Catholic foundation but founded as late as 1555. It was founded under Mary I for prayers to be said to its founder, Sir Thomas Pope, and the Royal Coat of Arms in the hall states that it is that of of "Phillipo et Maria".
And despite what HYUFD says, after 1558, there were no Catholic services at Oxford colleges until well into the 20th Century. Such a thing would have been unthinkable until relatively recently. Indeed until 1854 all students had to subscribe the the C of E at both matriculation and graduation.
Then add National Insurance to unearned income, while increasing income tax allowances. And, scrap the triple lock.
50% of the population will inherit substantial amounts, but work should pay for the 50% who will not inherit such sums.
I'm 56 and will likely inherit a lot of money over the next decade, but what use is to me now?
It is down to corporations to increase pay for those in the bottom 50% of earners, beyond ensuring a reasonable minimum wage that is not the role of government.
Yes government can cut tax for lower earners and put some funds to subsidise apprenticeships and skills training to make workers more productive and higher paid buy it is corporations who are responsible for making their profits and distributing them fairly amongst their workforce
There is a lot of money available to subsidize apprenticeships - the issue is that a lot of companies don't wish to invest the time and money training people up because another firm will instantly grab the trained workers.
For instance Hitachi no longer train welders because as soon as they do Bombardier and Siemens offer them more money to leave...
Then add National Insurance to unearned income, while increasing income tax allowances. And, scrap the triple lock.
50% of the population will inherit substantial amounts, but work should pay for the 50% who will not inherit such sums.
I'm 56 and will likely inherit a lot of money over the next decade, but what use is to me now?
Bingo!
People dying in their 80s or 90s and passing onto their children an inheritance are leaving to "children" in their 50s, 60s or 70s themselves.
When it comes to children the people with children, actually children rather than adult children, are typically in their 20s, 30s or 40s and should not be expecting any inheritance as even if their parents have money their parents should be ideally alive for another couple of decades. They should be able to provide for their family, including their children, and getting a house, via their own wages, not an inheritance.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
Mortgage rates fell rapidly after Black Wednesday in 1993.
In fact they had been falling for nearly two years before Black Wednesday:
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
So Christ had more followers than Truss?
“Christ only had 13 agents, and one was a double.”
He could draw a crowd of 5000, which must have been a considerable proportion of those living around Galilee 2000 years ago.
Self reported crowds are always massively inflated, call it 500-1000.
Rishi Rich and Hunt the C… appear to have no idea of the scale of the effect of mortgage rate rises on average earners, which are going to come due in the next year.
What can they do about it? Other than just give people money? (Which is an option.)
Cut income taxes, and reduce government spending to match.
The current problem they have, is less about what to actually do, and more about they way they speak. They appear not to give a sh!t that millions of people are going to be several hundred quid a month worse off, as evidenced by the PM’s interview this morning.
Neither Sunak nor Hunt has ever had to manage a household budget, in which there’s a high probability of having too much month left at the end of the money.
Problem is there is little Government expenditure that can be cut - and I wish I was kidding here but I literally can't think of any essential service (education, health, justice, social care) that hasn't already been cut to the bone.
Which is why there needs to be an honest and open discussion about the scope of government.
The political options are:
1. Accept that we all need to pay more to do the same. 2. Reduce government spending, by reducing scope of government activity. 3. Tax the “rich” until the pips squeak, where “rich” is the top 25% by income or ‘“wealth”, and generates many adverse effects.
We do need that honest debate, yes. And to keep YOU honest number 2 should also carry the warning of 'generates many adverse effects'.
As do the other options.
Hence the debate. If one of them had no adverse effects it'd be quite a short one.
Meanwhile, for complicated reasons I went to church this morning. Small village, fewer than 10 people in the congregation.
Some observations:
The vicar managed to name check three other religions, all for derogatory reasons (Jews, Brahmins, Muslims), he bewailed the fact that Christians can't wear crucifixes to work when Muslims can wear hijabs, and said that Jesus didn't come to bring peace and explained why this was.
So an interesting encounter with parochial muscular Christianity in this country.
I hope you told him he was talking bullshit about the crucifix thing.
Then add National Insurance to unearned income, while increasing income tax allowances. And, scrap the triple lock.
50% of the population will inherit substantial amounts, but work should pay for the 50% who will not inherit such sums.
I'm 56 and will likely inherit a lot of money over the next decade, but what use is to me now?
Bingo!
People dying in their 80s or 90s and passing onto their children an inheritance are leaving to "children" in their 50s, 60s or 70s themselves.
When it comes to children the people with children, actually children rather than adult children, are typically in their 20s, 30s or 40s and should not be expecting any inheritance as even if their parents have money their parents should be ideally alive for another couple of decades. They should be able to provide for their family, including their children, and getting a house, via their own wages, not an inheritance.
An extra thousand pound per year during your working life would be more useful than a big lump sum of inheritance in your 60s.
Then add National Insurance to unearned income, while increasing income tax allowances. And, scrap the triple lock.
50% of the population will inherit substantial amounts, but work should pay for the 50% who will not inherit such sums.
I'm 56 and will likely inherit a lot of money over the next decade, but what use is to me now?
Bingo!
People dying in their 80s or 90s and passing onto their children an inheritance are leaving to "children" in their 50s, 60s or 70s themselves.
When it comes to children the people with children, actually children rather than adult children, are typically in their 20s, 30s or 40s and should not be expecting any inheritance as even if their parents have money their parents should be ideally alive for another couple of decades. They should be able to provide for their family, including their children, and getting a house, via their own wages, not an inheritance.
I suspect we will be receiving the first half of our inheritance later this year when my parents downsize.
For me that means twin A and B will have decent deposits for their first homes because I really don't need it.
Meanwhile, for complicated reasons I went to church this morning. Small village, fewer than 10 people in the congregation.
Some observations:
The vicar managed to name check three other religions, all for derogatory reasons (Jews, Brahmins, Muslims), he bewailed the fact that Christians can't wear crucifixes to work when Muslims can wear hijabs, and said that Jesus didn't come to bring peace and explained why this was.
So an interesting encounter with parochial muscular Christianity in this country.
WRT IHT, it was certainly a mistake to push up main residence relief to £1m. But, we are where we are.
I'd scrap the exemptions for business property relief, farmland, woodland, works of art, country houses etc., and end the practice whereby life assurance and pensions can be placed in trust for named individuals, rather than forming part of the estate. All of those allowances are tax shelters, which inflate asset prices for that very reason.
No it wasn't, without that IHT main residence relief policy announced at the 2007 Tory conference by Osborne there would have been no Tory poll bounce post conference and Brown would have called a snap general election in late 2007 and probably won a small majority. Cameron may even then have been replaced as Conservative leader by David Davis.
It was not introduced by Osborne until 2015. What you're thinking of is the transferable nil rate band (which only reflected good IHT planning in the first place). There was never any need to to increase main residence relief to £1m. An allowance of £650,000 was quite enough to inherit a good sum.
The average property price in London is now over £650k at £737,512
So, someone with a 90% mortgage on an *average* home in London, is looking at an extra £1,500 *per month* in repayments. That’s £18,000 per year, which requires £30k in income assuming 40% marginal income tax.
Someone in the average home in London, is about to need to earn an extra £30k per year, just to afford mortgage interest rates going from 2% to 6%. Those numbers are totally horrific.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Though He didn't have a listed building to maintain or a tea rota to staff.
Or the £8.7 billion of assets and investments the Church of England still has
Many of the churches assets were stolen from the people of this country. If we are looking at reparations then the church should be looking at reparations in the U.K. to the people,of,the U.K.
More correctly, owned by the Catholic Church [now Roman Catholic, not the Anglican splinter] in trust for the people.
There is plenty of case law that says the splitters don't get the assets, on the whole. See the Free Churches of Scotland passim.
We also need to look at reparations from the aristocracy, too, given what happened at the Dissolution. And the posh public schools such as Eton. Possibly the only institutions still functioning as their donors intended, mutatis mutandis for the modern context, are the Oxbridge colleges.
Most Oxbridge colleges have Roman Catholic services as well as the main Anglican ones.
Reflecting the fact that all pre 1531 Oxbridge college chapels would indeed have been Roman Catholic
All churches that predate 1531 were RC. Not many of those still standing hold RC services. I'm sure the reason why Oxford holds RC services in protestant chapels, is to reflect the christian diversity of their students and the ecumenical drive in the post war years in the UK.
My college, Trinity College Oxford, was a Catholic foundation but founded as late as 1555. It was founded under Mary I for prayers to be said to its founder, Sir Thomas Pope, and the Royal Coat of Arms in the hall states that it is that of of "Phillipo et Maria".
And despite what HYUFD says, after 1558, there were no Catholic services at Oxford colleges until well into the 20th Century. Such a thing would have been unthinkable until relatively recently. Indeed until 1854 all students had to subscribe the the C of E at both matriculation and graduation.
From Mary Tudor's reign until 1791 there were no Roman Catholic services anywhere as Roman Catholic worship was illegal in England
Then add National Insurance to unearned income, while increasing income tax allowances. And, scrap the triple lock.
50% of the population will inherit substantial amounts, but work should pay for the 50% who will not inherit such sums.
I'm 56 and will likely inherit a lot of money over the next decade, but what use is to me now?
It is down to corporations to increase pay for those in the bottom 50% of earners, beyond ensuring a reasonable minimum wage that is not the role of government.
Yes government can cut tax for lower earners and put some funds to subsidise apprenticeships and skills training to make workers more productive and higher paid buy it is corporations who are responsible for making their profits and distributing them fairly amongst their workforce
There is a lot of money available to subsidize apprenticeships - the issue is that a lot of companies don't wish to invest the time and money training people up because another firm will instantly grab the trained workers.
For instance Hitachi no longer train welders because as soon as they do Bombardier and Siemens offer them more money to leave...
Which is why the government needs to organise apprenticeships on a per industry basis.
You guys must be exhausted after such a busy day on the battlefields of Eastern Europe. On some much deserved RnR I hope now.
Bravo Zulu to the lads. There was a very efficient tactical redeployment from Wagner are homeless derelicts who can't take Bakhmut to Wagner are going to do an 800km combined arms operation to Moscow and topple the government of the Russian Federation.
Then add National Insurance to unearned income, while increasing income tax allowances. And, scrap the triple lock.
50% of the population will inherit substantial amounts, but work should pay for the 50% who will not inherit such sums.
I'm 56 and will likely inherit a lot of money over the next decade, but what use is to me now?
It is down to corporations to increase pay for those in the bottom 50% of earners, beyond ensuring a reasonable minimum wage that is not the role of government.
Yes government can cut tax for lower earners and put some funds to subsidise apprenticeships and skills training to make workers more productive and higher paid buy it is corporations who are responsible for making their profits and distributing them fairly amongst their workforce
There is a lot of money available to subsidize apprenticeships - the issue is that a lot of companies don't wish to invest the time and money training people up because another firm will instantly grab the trained workers.
For instance Hitachi no longer train welders because as soon as they do Bombardier and Siemens offer them more money to leave...
Yet BA still trains pilots, because they have a training bond scheme. We’ll train you on plane type X, at a cost of £25k, but you need to work for us for three years afterwards.
Bombardier and Siemens also train apprentices, some of whom will go to work for Hitachi.
Then add National Insurance to unearned income, while increasing income tax allowances. And, scrap the triple lock.
50% of the population will inherit substantial amounts, but work should pay for the 50% who will not inherit such sums.
I'm 56 and will likely inherit a lot of money over the next decade, but what use is to me now?
Bingo!
People dying in their 80s or 90s and passing onto their children an inheritance are leaving to "children" in their 50s, 60s or 70s themselves.
When it comes to children the people with children, actually children rather than adult children, are typically in their 20s, 30s or 40s and should not be expecting any inheritance as even if their parents have money their parents should be ideally alive for another couple of decades. They should be able to provide for their family, including their children, and getting a house, via their own wages, not an inheritance.
I suspect we will be receiving the first half of our inheritance later this year when my parents downsize.
For me that means twin A and B will have decent deposits for their first homes because I really don't need it.
The twins being able to afford a deposit from their own efforts, maybe if you want with support from yourself from your own efforts if you want to help, would be better than having to wait until the death of someone else, would it not?
Then add National Insurance to unearned income, while increasing income tax allowances. And, scrap the triple lock.
50% of the population will inherit substantial amounts, but work should pay for the 50% who will not inherit such sums.
I'm 56 and will likely inherit a lot of money over the next decade, but what use is to me now?
It is down to corporations to increase pay for those in the bottom 50% of earners, beyond ensuring a reasonable minimum wage that is not the role of government.
Yes government can cut tax for lower earners and put some funds to subsidise apprenticeships and skills training to make workers more productive and higher paid buy it is corporations who are responsible for making their profits and distributing them fairly amongst their workforce
There is a lot of money available to subsidize apprenticeships - the issue is that a lot of companies don't wish to invest the time and money training people up because another firm will instantly grab the trained workers.
For instance Hitachi no longer train welders because as soon as they do Bombardier and Siemens offer them more money to leave...
Which is why the government needs to organise apprenticeships on a per industry basis.
They've tried that - if you want you can watch / listen to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9a9fK4aEwg about the National (High Speed) Rail School for an example of how that played out between 2015 and now (as badly as everything else this Government has done for multiple reason that are mainly self inflicted by the Government)
WRT IHT, it was certainly a mistake to push up main residence relief to £1m. But, we are where we are.
I'd scrap the exemptions for business property relief, farmland, woodland, works of art, country houses etc., and end the practice whereby life assurance and pensions can be placed in trust for named individuals, rather than forming part of the estate. All of those allowances are tax shelters, which inflate asset prices for that very reason.
No it wasn't, without that IHT main residence relief policy announced at the 2007 Tory conference by Osborne there would have been no Tory poll bounce post conference and Brown would have called a snap general election in late 2007 and probably won a small majority. Cameron may even then have been replaced as Conservative leader by David Davis.
It was not introduced by Osborne until 2015. What you're thinking of is the transferable nil rate band (which only reflected good IHT planning in the first place). There was never any need to to increase main residence relief to £1m. An allowance of £650,000 was quite enough to inherit a good sum.
One of things that baffle me is the hostility to the possibility of paying even small amounts of inheritance tax at some future date compared with the lack of concern about paying many hundreds in income tax and NI every month through PAYE.
You guys must be exhausted after such a busy day on the battlefields of Eastern Europe. On some much deserved RnR I hope now.
Bravo Zulu to the lads. There was a very efficient tactical redeployment from Wagner are homeless derelicts who can't take Bakhmut to Wagner are going to do an 800km combined arms operation to Moscow and topple the government of the Russian Federation.
As a Putin dick-rider, you must be relieved your bare-chested heart-throb is still in power!
Meanwhile, for complicated reasons I went to church this morning. Small village, fewer than 10 people in the congregation.
Some observations:
The vicar managed to name check three other religions, all for derogatory reasons (Jews, Brahmins, Muslims), he bewailed the fact that Christians can't wear crucifixes to work when Muslims can wear hijabs, and said that Jesus didn't come to bring peace and explained why this was.
So an interesting encounter with parochial muscular Christianity in this country.
Sounds like a traditional Conservative C of E vicar of the old school, a few of whom are still about in rural Parishes especially.
A long way from the Labour voting trendy left liberal vicars in most liberal Catholic C of E churches in our big cities and many of our larger towns
Comments
Unless you’re counting Mary Magdalene?
I guess they watch Nordic Noir to cheer themselves up.
- "Frank? Frank? You're not a Lutheran?"
Outside Europe there wasn't much Christianity in the 16th century (even if the first European colonies were starting to be founded by the Spanish in Mexico), even Palestine and Israel were under the Muslim Ottoman Empire.
Today of course it is the reverse, Christianity is stronger in Africa and Latin America and the USA than most of Europe
Nice to know that no one counts as being "in Britain" unless they are "native British".
Someone with a £500k house, and a 10% deposit, will see their mortgage go from £1900 per month to £2900 per month, if interest rates move from 2% to 6%. That’s an extra grand a month they’ll need to find, just to stand still in the property they own already.
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/mortgages/mortgage-calculator/result?deposit=50000&annualIncome=180000&term=25&interestRate=2
We also have a few Roman Catholics at our rural Anglican church for the main Anglican service for the same reason
Another contribution to the morgage shock hitting harder now compared to 1993 was that more peope in the 90s had variable rate mortgages and most people in 1993 knew that base rates could rise rapidly as they had done in the 70's and 80's.
Now the UK has had a 12-15 year period of negligible base rates preceeded by 10 years of low interest rates. Many of today's mortgage holders just didn't realise that a quick rise to the higher end of normal interest rates was i) possible and ii) how much extra it would cost them.
Equally how do you think Metroland and other similar schemes worked where the expansion of the railways was funded by the selling of new houses around the recently built stations..
I agree mortgage rates are a bigger problem but that was due to Truss' disastrous budget and high inflation post Covid and Ukraine war rather than house building levels
But I think you'll find there's very little to be gained by bandying facts with HYUFD.
Someone yesterday was asking if it was worth taking a fixed rate at 5% or staying on the SVR at 7.5% in the hope that rates will reduce. Thinking about it getting a new mortgage at 5% seems rather risk free at the moment.
Even the expansion of the professional home owning middle class from the 1930s to 1960s still only saw home ownership rise to about 40-45% of the UK population
We weren't relying on inheritance, either, unlike HYUFD's instant patent medicine for all economic ills.
(BTW it was also particularly irritating to have to pay higher interest rates because the inflated London and Home Counties housing market had boiled over - but not Scotland.)
Lukashenko seems to be important to Prigozhin. I can't see Putin naturally reaching out to him as a negotiator.
As an example I currently in theory have an SVR rate mortgage but because it's 100% offset I'm not concerned by it.
Now start reducing the interest rate I'm paying and I will shift the money elsewhere because it may be profitable to save it instead.
Edit to add - the 5% mortgage rate I referenced below seems to have disappeared since Thursday. A 66% 5 year fixed rate mortgage from Natwest is now 5.49%...
HYUFD would probably point out that St Thomas visited Kerala as early as 52 AD.
*Not really. Because oif inflation and fiscal drag on the inco,me tax saving allowance. But the old farts will think they are.
The current problem they have, is less about what to actually do, and more about they way they speak. They appear not to give a sh!t that millions of people are going to be several hundred quid a month worse off, as evidenced by the PM’s interview this morning.
Neither Sunak nor Hunt has ever had to manage a household budget, in which there’s a high probability of having too much month left at the end of the money.
However probably 90% of Christians were in Europe in the 16th century
Cannibals: ergo exactly the same sort of situation as we see yoday, the Tory-voting elderly preying on those outside the Conservative cave.
- Boris in The Telegraph, 2006.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528393/Boris-in-hot-water-over-cannibalism-in-Papua.html
'Mr Johnson refused to withdraw his remarks fully, citing a Time Life annual from the 1960s as evidence'
It might not be the same calculation in say December/January.
Person A faces alcohol duty, VAT etc on everything he spends as well as NNDR, Corporation Tax, Employers NI, Employee NI, Income Tax etc on the money they spent as it circulates.
I'll turn the question on its head. Why should the government want to discourage people working for a living?
People who work for a living should be treated as fairly as people who are relying upon the work of others, rather than themselves.
The political options are:
1. Accept that we all need to pay more to do the same.
2. Reduce government spending, by reducing scope of government activity.
3. Tax the “rich” until the pips squeak, where “rich” is the top 25% by income or ‘“wealth”, and generates many adverse effects.
And Osborne and co have been implementing that plan by stealth on younger "rich" people by penalising them at the £50,000 and £100,000 wage points.
If I went into the local parish church, I'd expect to see the cross upside down on the altar.
But I think any such scheme has to be tapered rather than cliff ended for the reasons that you have stated. There is also the problem of do doctors without UK University debt get something in lieu? As always the devil is in the details but we need to rebalance the package for doctors so that they have more benefits up front, whilst working for the NHS, but without bankrupting the country.
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1672800056595091457
In short, someone with a lot of power allowed Prighozin to get as far as he did, and used the chaos to weaken Putin's position. That someone was also able to use the FSB to get Prighozin to stop.
Supposedly Putin and Patrushev had an almighty falling out last week over Putin's plan to give Kadyrov control over parts of Russia...
https://twitter.com/generalsvr_en/status/1669622394518994946
It does feel like Patrushev is the one to watch at the minute.
I'd scrap the exemptions for business property relief, farmland, woodland, works of art, country houses etc., and end the practice whereby life assurance and pensions can be placed in trust for named individuals, rather than forming part of the estate. All of those allowances are tax shelters, which inflate asset prices for that very reason.
https://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b3570
50% of the population will inherit substantial amounts, but work should pay for the 50% who will not inherit such sums.
I'm 56 and will likely inherit a lot of money over the next decade, but what use is to me now?
Some observations:
The vicar managed to name check three other religions, all for derogatory reasons (Jews, Brahmins, Muslims), he bewailed the fact that Christians can't wear crucifixes to work when Muslims can wear hijabs, and said that Jesus didn't come to bring peace and explained why this was.
So an interesting encounter with parochial muscular Christianity in this country.
Yes government can cut tax for lower earners and put some funds in to subsidise apprenticeships and skills training to make workers more productive and higher paid but it is corporations who are responsible for making their profits and distributing them fairly amongst their workforce
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-london.html
And despite what HYUFD says, after 1558, there were no Catholic services at Oxford colleges until well into the 20th Century. Such a thing would have been unthinkable until relatively recently. Indeed until 1854 all students had to subscribe the the C of E at both matriculation and graduation.
For instance Hitachi no longer train welders because as soon as they do Bombardier and Siemens offer them more money to leave...
People dying in their 80s or 90s and passing onto their children an inheritance are leaving to "children" in their 50s, 60s or 70s themselves.
When it comes to children the people with children, actually children rather than adult children, are typically in their 20s, 30s or 40s and should not be expecting any inheritance as even if their parents have money their parents should be ideally alive for another couple of decades. They should be able to provide for their family, including their children, and getting a house, via their own wages, not an inheritance.
In fact they had been falling for nearly two years before Black Wednesday:
https://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/analysis/historical-interest-rates-uk/
If they hadn't then the Conservatives would not have won in 1992.
For me that means twin A and B will have decent deposits for their first homes because I really don't need it.
Someone in the average home in London, is about to need to earn an extra £30k per year, just to afford mortgage interest rates going from 2% to 6%. Those numbers are totally horrific.
Bombardier and Siemens also train apprentices, some of whom will go to work for Hitachi.
A long way from the Labour voting trendy left liberal vicars in most liberal Catholic C of E churches in our big cities and many of our larger towns