Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sunak continues to struggle with favourability – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,217
edited July 2023 in General
imageSunak continues to struggle with favourability – politicalbetting.com

My immediate reaction to this latest polling from Ipsos is that it can be a lot harder for the incumbent PM to do well on this question than the Opposition Leader. Quite simply the former has to make decisions that are often controversial.

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437
    Poverty is a choice made by the powerful.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MUX6nYUed0

    Two and a half minutes of video from Unison.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437
    Inheritance tax did well for the Conservatives previously, and a mere announcement led to cancellation of the general election that was being contemplated. It marked George Osborne as a political strategist of note.

    Osborne got married a few days ago, and several journalists and Conservative thinkers were among the guests. Is it possible they sought the great man's thoughts on the government's unpopularity? Is it coincidence that inheritance tax should appear again?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,136
    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,471
    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    It is sometimes referred to by tax advisers as 'the voluntary tax'.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144
    edited July 2023
    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,769
    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    If that was levied on a primary residence, that really would be electoral suicide.

    Even if it's fair, it would be horrendously unpopular.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,136
    edited July 2023
    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Or reduce wasteful government spending?

    Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,085
    I see the 'eighteen months' meme is now appearing on every thread header ;)

    Though to be fair this time it's prefaced by 'within.'

    Technically, yes, it could be as late as 28th January 2025, just as it could be 03rd January or, heck, 24th December. If the Gov't try to delay to the last possible minute they will be eviscerated in the main stream media, followed by the public vote. It would be political suicide for the Conservatives who, in the month when no-one has any money, would be wiped off the electoral map.

    The General Election is either 10/11 months away (May or June) or 15 months away (October).

    It's really a question now of which one minimises their losses. There is no magical Mr Micawber waiting in the wings.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,159
    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Or reduce hugely wasteful government spending?

    Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
    Because it’s an attitude, not an alternative.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,914
    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Most discussions of a "better structured property tax" have earmarked it to raise revenue currently raised by Britain's poorly structured property taxes - council tax and stamp duty. Or some portion of the revenue currently raised by national insurance, in order to change the balance of taxation from earned to unearned wealth.

    Although it's everyone's favourite new tax, it can't take the burden of replacing all current unpopular taxes.

    I think the best way for Labour to play this is to announce that they too would abolish IHT in its current form, and bring in a new tax on unearned wealth that would tax all those who currently benefit from tax dodges like family trusts - i.e. we want to cut tax for the people who play by the current IHT rules, and tax those who abuse loopholes to avoid IHT.

    Cutting tax for the virtuous and raising tax for freeloaders hits the right notes for the current political climate.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,914
    ydoethur said:

    If Sunak is ousted before the election we will have had four Prime Ministers in one parliamentary session. That hasn’t happened since the Second Reform Act (1865-68 - Palmerston, Russell, Derby, Disraeli).

    I can’t imagine it would be anything other than a vote loser for the Tories to change PM again.

    But more to the point, there’s no very obvious alternative who might do better.

    Penny the Warrior Queen!

    The Blue Wall is saved. And it may be true her previous outings in high office have ended in tears. So a handful of years keeping the PM hot-seat warm for Boris Johnson may be not arrest our nation's decline, but who wouldn't exchange their vote for a Prime Minister who resembles Catherine Deneuve?
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,085
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    If that was levied on a primary residence, that really would be electoral suicide.

    Even if it's fair, it would be horrendously unpopular.
    Window tax, anyone?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144
    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Or reduce wasteful government spending?

    Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
    What wasteful government expenditure do you have in mind?
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,085

    ydoethur said:

    If Sunak is ousted before the election we will have had four Prime Ministers in one parliamentary session. That hasn’t happened since the Second Reform Act (1865-68 - Palmerston, Russell, Derby, Disraeli).

    I can’t imagine it would be anything other than a vote loser for the Tories to change PM again.

    But more to the point, there’s no very obvious alternative who might do better.

    Penny the Warrior Queen!

    The Blue Wall is saved. And it may be true her previous outings in high office have ended in tears. So a handful of years keeping the PM hot-seat warm for Boris Johnson may be not arrest our nation's decline, but who wouldn't exchange their vote for a Prime Minister who resembles Catherine Deneuve?
    They had their chance for her and turned their backs. They'd be more likely to opt for Badenoch or Braverman.

    The deep desperation of the current Conservatives is almost a joy to behold.

    They are heading into the political wilderness for at least a decade. They know it. So does (almost) everyone else.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Foxy said:

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Or reduce wasteful government spending?

    Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
    What wasteful government expenditure do you have in mind?
    Paying for Arsenal's sleeve sponsorship in the Prem
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,769
    Heathener said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    If that was levied on a primary residence, that really would be electoral suicide.

    Even if it's fair, it would be horrendously unpopular.
    Window tax, anyone?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax
    That was a smashing idea. Everyone bricked it at the announcement.

    Although my personal favourite daft tax was Pitt the Younger's tax on female servants.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,136
    Foxy said:

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Or reduce wasteful government spending?

    Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
    What wasteful government expenditure do you have in mind?
    Everybody will have their own lists, and I've written mine on here several times before, but to repeat, I'd scrap foreign aid, subsidies to Northern Ireland, farming subsidies and every diversity officer for a start. I think that would save about £30-35 billion/year. From that, we could abolish IHT, rebuild the criminal justice system, improve our army, and probably have a bit left over to cut corporate profits and payroll taxes a bit.

    (Sacking diversity officers wouldn't save much, although each NHS one costs as much as three nurses on average, but it would be intensely satisfying and motivate me to look for more savings).

    What would you cut, or do you think that in a trillion pounds a year there's nothing that can be saved?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    IHT ought not be hated, given it affects relatively few people, but it is hated. In all likelihood, this would be a popular policy proposal.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Most discussions of a "better structured property tax" have earmarked it to raise revenue currently raised by Britain's poorly structured property taxes - council tax and stamp duty. Or some portion of the revenue currently raised by national insurance, in order to change the balance of taxation from earned to unearned wealth.

    Although it's everyone's favourite new tax, it can't take the burden of replacing all current unpopular taxes.

    I think the best way for Labour to play this is to announce that they too would abolish IHT in its current form, and bring in a new tax on unearned wealth that would tax all those who currently benefit from tax dodges like family trusts - i.e. we want to cut tax for the people who play by the current IHT rules, and tax those who abuse loopholes to avoid IHT.

    Cutting tax for the virtuous and raising tax for freeloaders hits the right notes for the current political climate.
    Disastrous plan. The abusers like the Vesteys and the Grosvenors employ armies of lawyers and accountants - most of the hideously complicated tax code is playing catch up with the schemes invented by Vestey advisers in the 20th century. You could get tied in serious knots chasing vanishing money.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,914
    edited July 2023
    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,415
    edited July 2023
    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Or reduce wasteful government spending?

    Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
    The problem is twofold.

    * Not all government spending is wasteful government spending. If you have a sovereign state in a Westphalian world, then you have to pay for it. This neoliberalism idea of continually cutting the state has reached and passed its limit. We have to stop indulging in fantasy politics and start actually paying for things. Like normal people.
    * A shit-ton of government spending is debt repayment. You either default, dilute the debt away thru inflation, or pay it. Pick one.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Sean_F said:

    IHT ought not be hated, given it affects relatively few people, but it is hated. In all likelihood, this would be a popular policy proposal.

    As I have noted below, it's not as few as it looks. every relevant estate affects a minimum of 2 people - the owner and one inheritor - and with children and grandchildren in most cases, the average might be 10. So 4% of estates = 40% of people.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,415
    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    I agree with you. Now tell me how to get that past ten million pensioners who vote.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    Also the 4% inheritors are not randomly distributed through the population. The majority of inheritors are also wealthy.

    Part of the reason it is disliked is its complexity. If people realised that it really only exists above 1 million pounds when the main asset is a family house.

    Hence the simultaneous dislike of IHT and support for a "mansion tax".

  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    No, THAT maths is staggeringly bad. mortality is 100% even among rich guys, so every single rich guy is going to die in 2023, or a subsequent year, so that is him plus 9 worrying about and voting according to, what the tax regime will be in 2026 or 2027 or 2037.

    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,914
    Miklosvar said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Most discussions of a "better structured property tax" have earmarked it to raise revenue currently raised by Britain's poorly structured property taxes - council tax and stamp duty. Or some portion of the revenue currently raised by national insurance, in order to change the balance of taxation from earned to unearned wealth.

    Although it's everyone's favourite new tax, it can't take the burden of replacing all current unpopular taxes.

    I think the best way for Labour to play this is to announce that they too would abolish IHT in its current form, and bring in a new tax on unearned wealth that would tax all those who currently benefit from tax dodges like family trusts - i.e. we want to cut tax for the people who play by the current IHT rules, and tax those who abuse loopholes to avoid IHT.

    Cutting tax for the virtuous and raising tax for freeloaders hits the right notes for the current political climate.
    Disastrous plan. The abusers like the Vesteys and the Grosvenors employ armies of lawyers and accountants - most of the hideously complicated tax code is playing catch up with the schemes invented by Vestey advisers in the 20th century. You could get tied in serious knots chasing vanishing money.
    Sure, there's always a gap between what sounds good from a political campaigning point of view, and what you can implement in a sound way. My proposal was very much focused on the former and not the latter.

    In terms of implementation the obvious change would be to move from a tax on estates to a tax on recipients (and claim this would achieve all the political propaganda objectives). Whether it would, or not, I don't know, but my post was addressing the pre-election political issue, and not the policy itself.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,769
    A better argument against inheritance tax is that it's actually not only very inefficient but tends to miss the main targets.

    My father's estate ought really to have been liable for inheritance tax, but due to some shrewd planning he had done over the years it didn't pay a penny.

    Similarly, the Duke of Westminster is the richest man in England, owning large chunks of London, but when his father died a few years back I'm willing to bet they didn't pay a penny in inheritance tax due to the way the family's finances are organised.

    But these come at a cost of their own. Because of the planning Dad had done, I had to pay solicitors and accountants to disentangle his affairs. If he hadn't been tying up his money to avoid inheritance tax, I could have done it myself. It also did add an awful lot of stress and complexity that I could have frankly done without, and probably didn't save much in the end as by the time we had finally got things sorted, probate had come through and we were able to sell his house the market had dropped significantly.

    Meanwhile, people with fairly ordinary three bed houses in South London get clobbered regardless.

    So - get rid of it because it doesn't work. That's a winning slogan.

    But - given this lot, I'm willing to bet they'll mess up any replacement.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,085
    edited July 2023
    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    You have been on this forum less than 2 months, during which time you have managed in your 723 posts to be very rude to a number of seasoned posters.

    This is mostly a genteel place and, even when there are sharp differences of opinion, there is usually a degree of respect.

    I suggest you cut the unnecessary rudeness and spend a little more time listening and reflecting.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Foxy said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    Also the 4% inheritors are not randomly distributed through the population. The majority of inheritors are also wealthy.

    Part of the reason it is disliked is its complexity. If people realised that it really only exists above 1 million pounds when the main asset is a family house.

    Hence the simultaneous dislike of IHT and support for a "mansion tax".

    That vies for illogic with the post it is a reply to. Wealthy people are of course notoriously indifferent to the prospect of becoming even wealthier, or less unwealthy. Not.

    Rich man has 9 rich descendants, that is 9 people who actively want to maximise the take from his death. If they are also rich they additionally want their heirs to maximise the take for themselves, which makes them even more anti IHT but it doesn't take them out of the equation for double counting, as you seem to think.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144
    viewcode said:

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Or reduce wasteful government spending?

    Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
    The problem is twofold.

    * Not all government spending is wasteful government spending. If you have a sovereign state in a Westphalian world, then you have to pay for it. This neoliberalism idea of continually cutting the state has reached and passed its limit. We have to stop indulging in fantasy politics and start actually paying for things. Like normal people.
    * A shit-ton of government spending is debt repayment. You either default, dilute the debt away thru inflation, or pay it. Pick one.
    We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.

    In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/may2023

    That isn't a position amenable to tax cuts.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,914
    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    No, THAT maths is staggeringly bad. mortality is 100% even among rich guys, so every single rich guy is going to die in 2023, or a subsequent year, so that is him plus 9 worrying about and voting according to, what the tax regime will be in 2026 or 2027 or 2037.

    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    But the people who die in the future with a taxable estate, will most likely be the same people who have inherited from a taxable estate in the past. You are counting them twice (or ten times). You'll get there in the end.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Heathener said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    You have been on this forum less than 2 months, during which time you have managed in your 723 posts to be very rude to a number of seasoned posters.

    This is mostly a genteel place and, even when there are sharp differences of opinion, there is usually a degree of respect.

    I suggest you cut the unnecessary rudeness and spend a little more time listening and reflecting.
    I am not allowed to respond to a misaccusation of "staggeringly bad maths"?

    Rather than correcting my manners I suggest you address yourself to the Sisyphean task of dispelling the mass delusion that the tories have a majority of 100-150 dialled in at the GE. You are truly a voice crying in the wilderness.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,415
    Miklosvar said:

    Sean_F said:

    IHT ought not be hated, given it affects relatively few people, but it is hated. In all likelihood, this would be a popular policy proposal.

    As I have noted below, it's not as few as it looks. every relevant estate affects a minimum of 2 people - the owner and one inheritor - and with children and grandchildren in most cases, the average might be 10. So 4% of estates = 40% of people.
    [Deleted. I only got up to wee. Get off the tablet, viewcode]
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144
    Miklosvar said:

    Foxy said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    Also the 4% inheritors are not randomly distributed through the population. The majority of inheritors are also wealthy.

    Part of the reason it is disliked is its complexity. If people realised that it really only exists above 1 million pounds when the main asset is a family house.

    Hence the simultaneous dislike of IHT and support for a "mansion tax".

    That vies for illogic with the post it is a reply to. Wealthy people are of course notoriously indifferent to the prospect of becoming even wealthier, or less unwealthy. Not.

    Rich man has 9 rich descendants, that is 9 people who actively want to maximise the take from his death. If they are also rich they additionally want their heirs to maximise the take for themselves, which makes them even more anti IHT but it doesn't take them out of the equation for double counting, as you seem to think.
    It is double counting because each potential inheritor has several potential inheritances in a lifetime. Chances are high that ones with one million pound estate have other potential inheritances too.

    If we really do want inheritances distributed over a larger number of people, the way to do it is to tax as capital gain by the recipient, so encouraging estate planners to distribute to many, and preferentially those with small incomes.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,808

    Inheritance tax did well for the Conservatives previously, and a mere announcement led to cancellation of the general election that was being contemplated. It marked George Osborne as a political strategist of note.

    Osborne got married a few days ago, and several journalists and Conservative thinkers were among the guests. Is it possible they sought the great man's thoughts on the government's unpopularity? Is it coincidence that inheritance tax should appear again?

    Cutting services at a time when the general public desperately need them to fund a bung to the already wealthy sounds like a great political strategy. On you go!
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,900

    Inheritance tax did well for the Conservatives previously, and a mere announcement led to cancellation of the general election that was being contemplated. It marked George Osborne as a political strategist of note.

    Osborne got married a few days ago, and several journalists and Conservative thinkers were among the guests. Is it possible they sought the great man's thoughts on the government's unpopularity? Is it coincidence that inheritance tax should appear again?

    Cutting services at a time when the general public desperately need them to fund a bung to the already wealthy sounds like a great political strategy. On you go!
    Certainly suggests the Tories have given up on the Red Wall!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,393
    edited July 2023
    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    No, THAT maths is staggeringly bad. mortality is 100% even among rich guys, so every single rich guy is going to die in 2023, or a subsequent year, so that is him plus 9 worrying about and voting according to, what the tax regime will be in 2026 or 2027 or 2037.

    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    Eh?? These people are specifically concentrated in two age classes, and many of the inheritors will inherit multiply within the same family (from two parents, and perhaps grandparent or childless aunt/uncle). So that 4% doesn't mean 40%.

    Edit: also massively and disproportionately favourable to those owning houses in the south and especially the home counties. Huge inflation booster there, crystallising the house price boom 100%.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,914
    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Or reduce wasteful government spending?

    Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
    The problem is twofold.

    * Not all government spending is wasteful government spending. If you have a sovereign state in a Westphalian world, then you have to pay for it. This neoliberalism idea of continually cutting the state has reached and passed its limit. We have to stop indulging in fantasy politics and start actually paying for things. Like normal people.
    * A shit-ton of government spending is debt repayment. You either default, dilute the debt away thru inflation, or pay it. Pick one.
    We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.

    In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/may2023

    That isn't a position amenable to tax cuts.
    It isn't a position amenable to increased public spending either, which is why Labour will stay a long way from what would be the best criticism of a proposal to abolish IHT - that the country simply can't afford it and it's almost Trussian in its recklessness.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    No, THAT maths is staggeringly bad. mortality is 100% even among rich guys, so every single rich guy is going to die in 2023, or a subsequent year, so that is him plus 9 worrying about and voting according to, what the tax regime will be in 2026 or 2027 or 2037.

    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    But the people who die in the future with a taxable estate, will most likely be the same people who have inherited from a taxable estate in the past. You are counting them twice (or ten times). You'll get there in the end.
    That makes no difference, or rather it makes your point even weaker. 4% of estates does not mean 4% of people, we agree. At first glance (this is your mistake) it means only 0.4% of people assuming rich oldies die off at 10% a year. But that doesn't matter. Mortality is 100% not 10%. So for every Big Daddy whose well-heeled death is foreseeable there are 10 voters with an interest in his death. Now, there is a bit of double counting at the grandchild level because they may have expectations from the other big granddaddy, so let's count them as half. That is still 8 votes per taxable estate. So the 4% figure is deceptive, but on the downside.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Foxy said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Foxy said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    Also the 4% inheritors are not randomly distributed through the population. The majority of inheritors are also wealthy.

    Part of the reason it is disliked is its complexity. If people realised that it really only exists above 1 million pounds when the main asset is a family house.

    Hence the simultaneous dislike of IHT and support for a "mansion tax".

    That vies for illogic with the post it is a reply to. Wealthy people are of course notoriously indifferent to the prospect of becoming even wealthier, or less unwealthy. Not.

    Rich man has 9 rich descendants, that is 9 people who actively want to maximise the take from his death. If they are also rich they additionally want their heirs to maximise the take for themselves, which makes them even more anti IHT but it doesn't take them out of the equation for double counting, as you seem to think.
    It is double counting because each potential inheritor has several potential inheritances in a lifetime. Chances are high that ones with one million pound estate have other potential inheritances too.

    If we really do want inheritances distributed over a larger number of people, the way to do it is to tax as capital gain by the recipient, so encouraging estate planners to distribute to many, and preferentially those with small incomes.
    Not really. Inheritances from rich maiden aunts don't never happen, but much the most usual case is that you get one serious chunk of inheritance, from the last surviving parent, plus the hope as a grandchild of some trickledown from your newly enriched parent.

    I am not pushing any particular principle here btw, just trying to establish why the issue is so powerful, apparently paradoxically.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,393
    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    No, THAT maths is staggeringly bad. mortality is 100% even among rich guys, so every single rich guy is going to die in 2023, or a subsequent year, so that is him plus 9 worrying about and voting according to, what the tax regime will be in 2026 or 2027 or 2037.

    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    But the people who die in the future with a taxable estate, will most likely be the same people who have inherited from a taxable estate in the past. You are counting them twice (or ten times). You'll get there in the end.
    That makes no difference, or rather it makes your point even weaker. 4% of estates does not mean 4% of people, we agree. At first glance (this is your mistake) it means only 0.4% of people assuming rich oldies die off at 10% a year. But that doesn't matter. Mortality is 100% not 10%. So for every Big Daddy whose well-heeled death is foreseeable there are 10 voters with an interest in his death. Now, there is a bit of double counting at the grandchild level because they may have expectations from the other big granddaddy, so let's count them as half. That is still 8 votes per taxable estate. So the 4% figure is deceptive, but on the downside.
    8 votes per estate? Many families have only 2-3 major/residual inheritors - the childrten - and the ones who get lump sums don't care abouit IHT.

    One thouight: this might discourage gifts to charities and the Tory Party. IHT immunities for those become irrelevant, so that much less motive.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Carnyx said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    No, THAT maths is staggeringly bad. mortality is 100% even among rich guys, so every single rich guy is going to die in 2023, or a subsequent year, so that is him plus 9 worrying about and voting according to, what the tax regime will be in 2026 or 2027 or 2037.

    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    But the people who die in the future with a taxable estate, will most likely be the same people who have inherited from a taxable estate in the past. You are counting them twice (or ten times). You'll get there in the end.
    That makes no difference, or rather it makes your point even weaker. 4% of estates does not mean 4% of people, we agree. At first glance (this is your mistake) it means only 0.4% of people assuming rich oldies die off at 10% a year. But that doesn't matter. Mortality is 100% not 10%. So for every Big Daddy whose well-heeled death is foreseeable there are 10 voters with an interest in his death. Now, there is a bit of double counting at the grandchild level because they may have expectations from the other big granddaddy, so let's count them as half. That is still 8 votes per taxable estate. So the 4% figure is deceptive, but on the downside.
    8 votes per estate? Many families have only 2-3 major/residual inheritors - the childrten - and the ones who get lump sums don't care abouit IHT.

    One thouight: this might discourage gifts to charities and the Tory Party. IHT immunities for those become irrelevant, so that much less motive.
    Children's children are hoping their parents will feel they have enough to lob them a house deposit.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,947
    Miklosvar said:

    Heathener said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    You have been on this forum less than 2 months, during which time you have managed in your 723 posts to be very rude to a number of seasoned posters.

    This is mostly a genteel place and, even when there are sharp differences of opinion, there is usually a degree of respect.

    I suggest you cut the unnecessary rudeness and spend a little more time listening and reflecting.
    I am not allowed to respond to a misaccusation of "staggeringly bad maths"?

    Rather than correcting my manners I suggest you address yourself to the Sisyphean task of dispelling the mass delusion that the tories have a majority of 100-150 dialled in at the GE. You are truly a voice crying in the wilderness.
    It is difficult to believe there is anyone more rude and obnoxious than yourself. Not content with your appalling behaviour to myself and others previously, last night you implied @kle4 was a liar in a stream of obnoxious posts and now you are at it again being offensive to another group of posters.

    If we are all so stupid why do you bother interacting with us idiots. Why don't you let us get on with our own clearly moronic conversations.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Carnyx said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    No, THAT maths is staggeringly bad. mortality is 100% even among rich guys, so every single rich guy is going to die in 2023, or a subsequent year, so that is him plus 9 worrying about and voting according to, what the tax regime will be in 2026 or 2027 or 2037.

    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    But the people who die in the future with a taxable estate, will most likely be the same people who have inherited from a taxable estate in the past. You are counting them twice (or ten times). You'll get there in the end.
    That makes no difference, or rather it makes your point even weaker. 4% of estates does not mean 4% of people, we agree. At first glance (this is your mistake) it means only 0.4% of people assuming rich oldies die off at 10% a year. But that doesn't matter. Mortality is 100% not 10%. So for every Big Daddy whose well-heeled death is foreseeable there are 10 voters with an interest in his death. Now, there is a bit of double counting at the grandchild level because they may have expectations from the other big granddaddy, so let's count them as half. That is still 8 votes per taxable estate. So the 4% figure is deceptive, but on the downside.
    8 votes per estate? Many families have only 2-3 major/residual inheritors - the childrten - and the ones who get lump sums don't care abouit IHT.

    One thouight: this might discourage gifts to charities and the Tory Party. IHT immunities for those become irrelevant, so that much less motive.
    It would also lock up even more wealth with an even higher age group by removing the incentive to disperse assets before death.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    kjh said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Heathener said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    You have been on this forum less than 2 months, during which time you have managed in your 723 posts to be very rude to a number of seasoned posters.

    This is mostly a genteel place and, even when there are sharp differences of opinion, there is usually a degree of respect.

    I suggest you cut the unnecessary rudeness and spend a little more time listening and reflecting.
    I am not allowed to respond to a misaccusation of "staggeringly bad maths"?

    Rather than correcting my manners I suggest you address yourself to the Sisyphean task of dispelling the mass delusion that the tories have a majority of 100-150 dialled in at the GE. You are truly a voice crying in the wilderness.
    It is difficult to believe there is anyone more rude and obnoxious than yourself. Not content with your appalling behaviour to myself and others previously, last night you implied @kle4 was a liar in a stream of obnoxious posts and now you are at it again being offensive to another group of posters.

    If we are all so stupid why do you bother interacting with us idiots. Why don't you let us get on with our own clearly moronic conversations.
    Yes. This started with a post of yours which you expressly stated to be "for the wind up." Can I draw your attention to a well known saying about kitchens and heat-tolerance?

    I pointed out to someone, with quotes, that he was wrong. That is not calling him a liar.

    I have had the courtesy to agree not to interact with you. Kindly reciprocate.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277
    Labour would need to be careful how they respond to the Tories scrapping IHT .

    It’s one of those taxes which most hate even if they’ll never benefit from it .

    On the face of it it’s a form of double taxation.

    I’m sure the policy will poll well and I’m sure will help the Tories in certain seats .
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,505

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    No, THAT maths is staggeringly bad. mortality is 100% even among rich guys, so every single rich guy is going to die in 2023, or a subsequent year, so that is him plus 9 worrying about and voting according to, what the tax regime will be in 2026 or 2027 or 2037.

    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    But the people who die in the future with a taxable estate, will most likely be the same people who have inherited from a taxable estate in the past. You are counting them twice (or ten times). You'll get there in the end.
    I doubt he will
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144
    viewcode said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    I agree with you. Now tell me how to get that past ten million pensioners who vote.
    That is the toad squatting on all attempts at government, the pluto-gerontocracy that I too shall soon join.

    I have been musing on how our country used to manage on far lower tax take as a percent of GDP. I think we have to go back to 1908 (before state pensions) to get to 15% of GDP, though we did have spending below 35% even into the 1960s.

    The main thing that was different was the age structure of the population, with far fewer elderly, but also we had far more tolerance of poverty. To some extent that poverty was managed via an informal welfare state of family, community and religious obligations, as indeed it still is in many parts of the world.

    To get back to a government spend of below 30% we would have to abolish most state benefits, or greatly restrict eligibility, and cease government funding of most health and education.

    It would be a radically different society, and one where most of the informal welfare state of family, community and religious obligations have atrophied.

  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Stunning victory for the Torygraph if the IHT pledge is made. And good politics in drawing back in the shire tories who intended to sit this one out.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    edited July 2023
    Just to note, it’s not 2007/2008 and Labour have not been in power for 10 years and public services are not in the state now they were then. What was politically popular when suggested by a relatively well regarded opposition in a time of relative plenty may not be so popular now when advocated by a deeply unpopular government that has overseen such a decline in so much of what the state is responsible for.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,505
    Miklosvar said:

    kjh said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Heathener said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    You have been on this forum less than 2 months, during which time you have managed in your 723 posts to be very rude to a number of seasoned posters.

    This is mostly a genteel place and, even when there are sharp differences of opinion, there is usually a degree of respect.

    I suggest you cut the unnecessary rudeness and spend a little more time listening and reflecting.
    I am not allowed to respond to a misaccusation of "staggeringly bad maths"?

    Rather than correcting my manners I suggest you address yourself to the Sisyphean task of dispelling the mass delusion that the tories have a majority of 100-150 dialled in at the GE. You are truly a voice crying in the wilderness.
    It is difficult to believe there is anyone more rude and obnoxious than yourself. Not content with your appalling behaviour to myself and others previously, last night you implied @kle4 was a liar in a stream of obnoxious posts and now you are at it again being offensive to another group of posters.

    If we are all so stupid why do you bother interacting with us idiots. Why don't you let us get on with our own clearly moronic conversations.
    Yes. This started with a post of yours which you expressly stated to be "for the wind up." Can I draw your attention to a well known saying about kitchens and heat-tolerance?

    I pointed out to someone, with quotes, that he was wrong. That is not calling him a liar.

    I have had the courtesy to agree not to interact with you. Kindly reciprocate.
    Ha Ha Ha , obnoxious arse giving out orders as to who can post to whom. Jog on Loser you will not be missed.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    malcolmg said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kjh said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Heathener said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    You have been on this forum less than 2 months, during which time you have managed in your 723 posts to be very rude to a number of seasoned posters.

    This is mostly a genteel place and, even when there are sharp differences of opinion, there is usually a degree of respect.

    I suggest you cut the unnecessary rudeness and spend a little more time listening and reflecting.
    I am not allowed to respond to a misaccusation of "staggeringly bad maths"?

    Rather than correcting my manners I suggest you address yourself to the Sisyphean task of dispelling the mass delusion that the tories have a majority of 100-150 dialled in at the GE. You are truly a voice crying in the wilderness.
    It is difficult to believe there is anyone more rude and obnoxious than yourself. Not content with your appalling behaviour to myself and others previously, last night you implied @kle4 was a liar in a stream of obnoxious posts and now you are at it again being offensive to another group of posters.

    If we are all so stupid why do you bother interacting with us idiots. Why don't you let us get on with our own clearly moronic conversations.
    Yes. This started with a post of yours which you expressly stated to be "for the wind up." Can I draw your attention to a well known saying about kitchens and heat-tolerance?

    I pointed out to someone, with quotes, that he was wrong. That is not calling him a liar.

    I have had the courtesy to agree not to interact with you. Kindly reciprocate.
    Ha Ha Ha , obnoxious arse giving out orders as to who can post to whom. Jog on Loser you will not be missed.
    The boss will be back, malc. Let's hope he didn't note the mileage on the Porsche when he departed.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,842
    edited July 2023
    I don't agree with Mr Smithson. I think most voters will applaud getting rid of IHT or as a de minimus raising the threshold to say 2 million. It's an inspirational thing that people support irrespective of whether it will affect them.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144
    Miklosvar said:

    Heathener said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    You have been on this forum less than 2 months, during which time you have managed in your 723 posts to be very rude to a number of seasoned posters.

    This is mostly a genteel place and, even when there are sharp differences of opinion, there is usually a degree of respect.

    I suggest you cut the unnecessary rudeness and spend a little more time listening and reflecting.
    I am not allowed to respond to a misaccusation of "staggeringly bad maths"?

    Rather than correcting my manners I suggest you address yourself to the Sisyphean task of dispelling the mass delusion that the tories have a majority of 100-150 dialled in at the GE. You are truly a voice crying in the wilderness.
    Does anyone here think that "the Tories have a majority of 100-150 dialled in"?

    Maybe that they will be on 100-150 seats in total, but not that as a majority surely?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,842
    edited July 2023

    Just to note, it’s not 2007/2008 and Labour have not been in power for 10 years and public services are not in the state now they were then. What was politically popular when suggested by a relatively well regarded opposition in a time of relative plenty may not be so popular now when advocated by a deeply unpopular government that has overseen such a decline in so much of what the state is responsible for.

    Time off plenty .. lol...we were fecked then as we are now.. there is no money left.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Foxy said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Heathener said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    You have been on this forum less than 2 months, during which time you have managed in your 723 posts to be very rude to a number of seasoned posters.

    This is mostly a genteel place and, even when there are sharp differences of opinion, there is usually a degree of respect.

    I suggest you cut the unnecessary rudeness and spend a little more time listening and reflecting.
    I am not allowed to respond to a misaccusation of "staggeringly bad maths"?

    Rather than correcting my manners I suggest you address yourself to the Sisyphean task of dispelling the mass delusion that the tories have a majority of 100-150 dialled in at the GE. You are truly a voice crying in the wilderness.
    Does anyone here think that "the Tories have a majority of 100-150 dialled in"?

    Maybe that they will be on 100-150 seats in total, but not that as a majority surely?
    The poster I am replying to, seems to think she is a lone voice in predicting a bad GE 24 for the tories.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Or reduce wasteful government spending?

    Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
    The problem is twofold.

    * Not all government spending is wasteful government spending. If you have a sovereign state in a Westphalian world, then you have to pay for it. This neoliberalism idea of continually cutting the state has reached and passed its limit. We have to stop indulging in fantasy politics and start actually paying for things. Like normal people.
    * A shit-ton of government spending is debt repayment. You either default, dilute the debt away thru inflation, or pay it. Pick one.
    We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.

    In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/may2023

    That isn't a position amenable to tax cuts.
    No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144
    nico679 said:

    Labour would need to be careful how they respond to the Tories scrapping IHT .

    It’s one of those taxes which most hate even if they’ll never benefit from it .

    On the face of it it’s a form of double taxation.

    I’m sure the policy will poll well and I’m sure will help the Tories in certain seats .

    We have lots of double taxation.

    If I put petrol in my car or buy a pint in the pub I am paying fuel duty, beer duty and VAT, all out of already taxed money.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    Labour would need to be careful how they respond to the Tories scrapping IHT .

    It’s one of those taxes which most hate even if they’ll never benefit from it .

    On the face of it it’s a form of double taxation.

    I’m sure the policy will poll well and I’m sure will help the Tories in certain seats .

    We have lots of double taxation.

    If I put petrol in my car or buy a pint in the pub I am paying fuel duty, beer duty and VAT, all out of already taxed money.
    Correct, that was always a ridiculous argument. It only has merit in its original context of tax on dividends, where corporation tax is paid on revenue which is then distributed, because companies are a legal fiction so taxing the divi would be taxing effectively one transaction, twice. Which happens now anyway.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,806
    edited July 2023
    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    Labour would need to be careful how they respond to the Tories scrapping IHT .

    It’s one of those taxes which most hate even if they’ll never benefit from it .

    On the face of it it’s a form of double taxation.

    I’m sure the policy will poll well and I’m sure will help the Tories in certain seats .

    We have lots of double taxation.

    If I put petrol in my car or buy a pint in the pub I am paying fuel duty, beer duty and VAT, all out of already taxed money.
    True, but Nico is right. Plenty of scope for the DM, Express, Sun etc to create a vibe that Labour are going to snatch your granny's house when she dies. Similarly, any ideas of a sensible wealth tax or more progressive property tax being labelled as a 'garden tax' or similar.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    Labour would need to be careful how they respond to the Tories scrapping IHT .

    It’s one of those taxes which most hate even if they’ll never benefit from it .

    On the face of it it’s a form of double taxation.

    I’m sure the policy will poll well and I’m sure will help the Tories in certain seats .

    We have lots of double taxation.

    If I put petrol in my car or buy a pint in the pub I am paying fuel duty, beer duty and VAT, all out of already taxed money.
    What I find truly ridiculous is paying VAT on your duty, a tax on a tax! How did governments ever get away with that? Probably heaped the blame on the EU as VAT was their idea but what is the excuse now?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,769
    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    Labour would need to be careful how they respond to the Tories scrapping IHT .

    It’s one of those taxes which most hate even if they’ll never benefit from it .

    On the face of it it’s a form of double taxation.

    I’m sure the policy will poll well and I’m sure will help the Tories in certain seats .

    We have lots of double taxation.

    If I put petrol in my car or buy a pint in the pub I am paying fuel duty, beer duty and VAT, all out of already taxed money.
    I thought you had an electric car?
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    This is 2 levels of kite flying by the government. They want to see how it plays with the focus groups, and they want to push labour into announcing their own plans for IHT reform which hopefully will yield something which can be portrayed as a Granny tax or garden tax - to do to themselves what TMay did to herself in 2017.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,806
    edited July 2023
    O/T I see Goodwood Festival of Speed is cancelled today due to the potential for high winds. No doubt a sensible decision but that will cost the organisers dearly, and a big shame for anyone with tickets for today, of course.

    We were there yesterday and the persistent rain dampened the experience a bit but we still had a great time. God knows how many £millions of rare and exotic cars there were there, too many to see them all.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    Labour would need to be careful how they respond to the Tories scrapping IHT .

    It’s one of those taxes which most hate even if they’ll never benefit from it .

    On the face of it it’s a form of double taxation.

    I’m sure the policy will poll well and I’m sure will help the Tories in certain seats .

    We have lots of double taxation.

    If I put petrol in my car or buy a pint in the pub I am paying fuel duty, beer duty and VAT, all out of already taxed money.
    I thought you had an electric car?
    We have 2 cars in our house, 1 electric and one hybrid.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,947
    edited July 2023
    Miklosvar said:

    kjh said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Heathener said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    You have been on this forum less than 2 months, during which time you have managed in your 723 posts to be very rude to a number of seasoned posters.

    This is mostly a genteel place and, even when there are sharp differences of opinion, there is usually a degree of respect.

    I suggest you cut the unnecessary rudeness and spend a little more time listening and reflecting.
    I am not allowed to respond to a misaccusation of "staggeringly bad maths"?

    Rather than correcting my manners I suggest you address yourself to the Sisyphean task of dispelling the mass delusion that the tories have a majority of 100-150 dialled in at the GE. You are truly a voice crying in the wilderness.
    It is difficult to believe there is anyone more rude and obnoxious than yourself. Not content with your appalling behaviour to myself and others previously, last night you implied @kle4 was a liar in a stream of obnoxious posts and now you are at it again being offensive to another group of posters.

    If we are all so stupid why do you bother interacting with us idiots. Why don't you let us get on with our own clearly moronic conversations.
    Yes. This started with a post of yours which you expressly stated to be "for the wind up." Can I draw your attention to a well known saying about kitchens and heat-tolerance?

    I pointed out to someone, with quotes, that he was wrong. That is not calling him a liar.

    I have had the courtesy to agree not to interact with you. Kindly reciprocate.
    I have refrained from responding to your posts. All last night in fact while you spewed your vile posts at @kle and @Richard_Tyndall and others. And you are at it again this morning to another group of posters. It is just too much. You seem incapable of having a civilised conversation and not being able to be excessively rude. And you seem to contrive situations where none existed in the first place hijacking civilised debates that others are having.

    It is interesting that 'for the wind up' (a post from sometime ago) was the trigger for you. I had no idea. It is a reflection as to how your brain must work because that post was a joke mainly for the attention of @ydoethur (a history teacher) with a great sense of humour with whom I and other often exchange jokes. Yet you took it as a serious post.

    As regarding @kle4 being called a liar, he raised that with you twice and yet you did not clarify and you most certainly called me a liar directly previously

    I consider the people posting here to be my friends. I have known them for a long time. I will not stand by and see them abused by you and not comment.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    kjh said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kjh said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Heathener said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    You have been on this forum less than 2 months, during which time you have managed in your 723 posts to be very rude to a number of seasoned posters.

    This is mostly a genteel place and, even when there are sharp differences of opinion, there is usually a degree of respect.

    I suggest you cut the unnecessary rudeness and spend a little more time listening and reflecting.
    I am not allowed to respond to a misaccusation of "staggeringly bad maths"?

    Rather than correcting my manners I suggest you address yourself to the Sisyphean task of dispelling the mass delusion that the tories have a majority of 100-150 dialled in at the GE. You are truly a voice crying in the wilderness.
    It is difficult to believe there is anyone more rude and obnoxious than yourself. Not content with your appalling behaviour to myself and others previously, last night you implied @kle4 was a liar in a stream of obnoxious posts and now you are at it again being offensive to another group of posters.

    If we are all so stupid why do you bother interacting with us idiots. Why don't you let us get on with our own clearly moronic conversations.
    Yes. This started with a post of yours which you expressly stated to be "for the wind up." Can I draw your attention to a well known saying about kitchens and heat-tolerance?

    I pointed out to someone, with quotes, that he was wrong. That is not calling him a liar.

    I have had the courtesy to agree not to interact with you. Kindly reciprocate.
    I have refrained from responding to your posts. All last night in fact while you spewed your vile posts at @kle and @Richard_Tyndall and others. And you are at it again this morning to another group of posters. It is just too much. You seem incapable of having a civilised conversation and not being able to be excessively rude. And you seem to contrive situations where none existed in the first place hijacking civilised debates that others are having.

    It is interesting that 'for the wind up' (a post from sometime ago) was the trigger for you. I had no idea. It is a reflection as to how your brain must work because that post was a joke mainly for the attention of @ydoethur (a history teacher) with a great sense of humour with whom I and other often exchange jokes. Yet you took it as a serious post.

    As regarding @kle4 being called a lair, he raised that with you twice and yet you did not clarify and you most certainly called me a liar directly previously

    I consider the people posting here my friends. I have known them for a long time. I will not stand by and see them abused by you and not comment.
    ...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,806
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    Labour would need to be careful how they respond to the Tories scrapping IHT .

    It’s one of those taxes which most hate even if they’ll never benefit from it .

    On the face of it it’s a form of double taxation.

    I’m sure the policy will poll well and I’m sure will help the Tories in certain seats .

    We have lots of double taxation.

    If I put petrol in my car or buy a pint in the pub I am paying fuel duty, beer duty and VAT, all out of already taxed money.
    I thought you had an electric car?
    In any event, he did say 'if...'
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Or reduce wasteful government spending?

    Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
    The problem is twofold.

    * Not all government spending is wasteful government spending. If you have a sovereign state in a Westphalian world, then you have to pay for it. This neoliberalism idea of continually cutting the state has reached and passed its limit. We have to stop indulging in fantasy politics and start actually paying for things. Like normal people.
    * A shit-ton of government spending is debt repayment. You either default, dilute the debt away thru inflation, or pay it. Pick one.
    We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.

    In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/may2023

    That isn't a position amenable to tax cuts.
    No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
    I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,246
    nico679 said:

    Labour would need to be careful how they respond to the Tories scrapping IHT .

    It’s one of those taxes which most hate even if they’ll never benefit from it .

    On the face of it it’s a form of double taxation.

    I’m sure the policy will poll well and I’m sure will help the Tories in certain seats .

    I suspect a large part of the excess estates that trigger IHT are capital gains on homes, which aren't taxed at all.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    FF43 said:

    nico679 said:

    Labour would need to be careful how they respond to the Tories scrapping IHT .

    It’s one of those taxes which most hate even if they’ll never benefit from it .

    On the face of it it’s a form of double taxation.

    I’m sure the policy will poll well and I’m sure will help the Tories in certain seats .

    I suspect a large part of the excess estates that trigger IHT are capital gains on homes, which aren't taxed at all.
    An excellent point.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,234

    I don't agree with Mr Smithson. I think most voters will applaud getting rid of IHT or as a de minimus raising the threshold to say 2 million. It's an inspirational thing that people support irrespective of whether it will affect them.

    Yes it is an aspirational thing, and Miklosvar is correct that beneficiaries are often left out when people talk about the proportion of the population concerned about IHT.

    Also true that far more people are more worried about potential care home fees than IHT.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Or reduce wasteful government spending?

    Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
    The problem is twofold.

    * Not all government spending is wasteful government spending. If you have a sovereign state in a Westphalian world, then you have to pay for it. This neoliberalism idea of continually cutting the state has reached and passed its limit. We have to stop indulging in fantasy politics and start actually paying for things. Like normal people.
    * A shit-ton of government spending is debt repayment. You either default, dilute the debt away thru inflation, or pay it. Pick one.
    We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.

    In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/may2023

    That isn't a position amenable to tax cuts.
    No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
    I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
    The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,806
    edited July 2023

    Just to note, it’s not 2007/2008 and Labour have not been in power for 10 years and public services are not in the state now they were then. What was politically popular when suggested by a relatively well regarded opposition in a time of relative plenty may not be so popular now when advocated by a deeply unpopular government that has overseen such a decline in so much of what the state is responsible for.

    Time off plenty .. lol...we were fecked then as we are now.. there is no money left.
    Living standards rose a lot during the Labour years.

    Living standards during 13 years of Tories have stagnated; many will feel (and actually be) worse off now than they were in 2010.

    It's as simple as that.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Or reduce wasteful government spending?

    Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
    The problem is twofold.

    * Not all government spending is wasteful government spending. If you have a sovereign state in a Westphalian world, then you have to pay for it. This neoliberalism idea of continually cutting the state has reached and passed its limit. We have to stop indulging in fantasy politics and start actually paying for things. Like normal people.
    * A shit-ton of government spending is debt repayment. You either default, dilute the debt away thru inflation, or pay it. Pick one.
    We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.

    In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/may2023

    That isn't a position amenable to tax cuts.
    No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
    I think that I am as dry as you on government finances. The freezing of thresholds of tax bands is going to be quite a stealth tax over the next few years, and probably a necessary one to gradually reduce the deficit.

    To do that and abolish IHT is a net transfer of tax from wealth to income, further increasing generational inequality.

    Worth noting too that the mooted decrease in house prices of 10-15% in absolute terms, or 20-40% in real terms will have quite an impact on estate size and IHT receipts.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,234
    FF43 said:

    nico679 said:

    Labour would need to be careful how they respond to the Tories scrapping IHT .

    It’s one of those taxes which most hate even if they’ll never benefit from it .

    On the face of it it’s a form of double taxation.

    I’m sure the policy will poll well and I’m sure will help the Tories in certain seats .

    I suspect a large part of the excess estates that trigger IHT are capital gains on homes, which aren't taxed at all.
    Well they are, in effect, by the eventual IHT.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,914
    edited July 2023
    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    Labour would need to be careful how they respond to the Tories scrapping IHT .

    It’s one of those taxes which most hate even if they’ll never benefit from it .

    On the face of it it’s a form of double taxation.

    I’m sure the policy will poll well and I’m sure will help the Tories in certain seats .

    We have lots of double taxation.

    If I put petrol in my car or buy a pint in the pub I am paying fuel duty, beer duty and VAT, all out of already taxed money.
    Generally speaking, however, we don't tax acts of benevolence, such as Christmas gifts, or donations to charity. People see inheritance as a final act of benevolence in the same vein as a £10 note tucked inside a Christmas card. It's not an overdue payment for grandchildren services rendered.

    The more I think about it the more ridiculous IHT appears.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Or reduce wasteful government spending?

    Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
    The problem is twofold.

    * Not all government spending is wasteful government spending. If you have a sovereign state in a Westphalian world, then you have to pay for it. This neoliberalism idea of continually cutting the state has reached and passed its limit. We have to stop indulging in fantasy politics and start actually paying for things. Like normal people.
    * A shit-ton of government spending is debt repayment. You either default, dilute the debt away thru inflation, or pay it. Pick one.
    We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.

    In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/may2023

    That isn't a position amenable to tax cuts.
    No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
    I think that I am as dry as you on government finances. The freezing of thresholds of tax bands is going to be quite a stealth tax over the next few years, and probably a necessary one to gradually reduce the deficit.

    To do that and abolish IHT is a net transfer of tax from wealth to income, further increasing generational inequality.

    Worth noting too that the mooted decrease in house prices of 10-15% in absolute terms, or 20-40% in real terms will have quite an impact on estate size and IHT receipts.
    It would be a price worth paying in that it would reduce intergenerational unfairness and wealth inequality. It is very, very difficult in this country to accumulate capital from income, the latter is taxed far too highly. In contrast capital generated from capital is barely touched. It drives inequality and many other of our social ills.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Stocky said:

    I don't agree with Mr Smithson. I think most voters will applaud getting rid of IHT or as a de minimus raising the threshold to say 2 million. It's an inspirational thing that people support irrespective of whether it will affect them.

    Yes it is an aspirational thing, and Miklosvar is correct that beneficiaries are often left out when people talk about the proportion of the population concerned about IHT.

    Also true that far more people are more worried about potential care home fees than IHT.
    Thank you!!

    Of course there's a huge overlap. Much of the worry about care home fees is presumably from children seeing their inheritance eaten up.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,806
    Of course the Tories can go into the election with all sorts of policies they know they are never going to have to implement.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,806
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Or reduce wasteful government spending?

    Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
    The problem is twofold.

    * Not all government spending is wasteful government spending. If you have a sovereign state in a Westphalian world, then you have to pay for it. This neoliberalism idea of continually cutting the state has reached and passed its limit. We have to stop indulging in fantasy politics and start actually paying for things. Like normal people.
    * A shit-ton of government spending is debt repayment. You either default, dilute the debt away thru inflation, or pay it. Pick one.
    We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.

    In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/may2023

    That isn't a position amenable to tax cuts.
    No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
    I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
    The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
    Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited July 2023
    Well Starmer is also not doing well on favourability, negative on a net basis too. Gold standard Survation also has Sunak cutting Starmer's lead as preferred PM to just 2% on its latest poll, 36% to 38% and I doubt any alternative Tory leader would do better than that now

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1678426099716333570?s=20

    The Tory plan to have abolishing IHT as a manifesto commitment is a brilliant one. Having it as the big goodie in the Tory manifesto means Sunak and Hunt can focus on cutting inflation and keeping cost of living down before the next election without any big tax cuts (income tax or VAT cuts would also cost more than abolishing IHT overall). Only if the Tories win an unprecedented 5th consecutive general election victory would it need to be implemented.

    It is also a policy targeted at the Waitrose shopper southern England and posh bits of London bluewall seats, which the Conservatives are currently neck and neck with Labour in and where the LDs are strong and which they need to hold to save the furniture. The more Aldi shopper Redwall seats are likely gone back to Labour regardless now Brexit has been done and Boris and Corbyn are gone and Labour now have a big poll lead there again
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,234
    Miklosvar said:

    Stocky said:

    I don't agree with Mr Smithson. I think most voters will applaud getting rid of IHT or as a de minimus raising the threshold to say 2 million. It's an inspirational thing that people support irrespective of whether it will affect them.

    Yes it is an aspirational thing, and Miklosvar is correct that beneficiaries are often left out when people talk about the proportion of the population concerned about IHT.

    Also true that far more people are more worried about potential care home fees than IHT.
    Thank you!!

    Of course there's a huge overlap. Much of the worry about care home fees is presumably from children seeing their inheritance eaten up.
    Yes, but also the old person him/herself. It is tremendously distressing to see the family home evaporating to the local council. It is, for many, their life's achievement which they thought would provide some security after their death to their loved ones.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,393
    Miklosvar said:

    Carnyx said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.

    I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.

    But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
    But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)

    So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
    That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.

    4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.

    The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
    No, THAT maths is staggeringly bad. mortality is 100% even among rich guys, so every single rich guy is going to die in 2023, or a subsequent year, so that is him plus 9 worrying about and voting according to, what the tax regime will be in 2026 or 2027 or 2037.

    There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
    But the people who die in the future with a taxable estate, will most likely be the same people who have inherited from a taxable estate in the past. You are counting them twice (or ten times). You'll get there in the end.
    That makes no difference, or rather it makes your point even weaker. 4% of estates does not mean 4% of people, we agree. At first glance (this is your mistake) it means only 0.4% of people assuming rich oldies die off at 10% a year. But that doesn't matter. Mortality is 100% not 10%. So for every Big Daddy whose well-heeled death is foreseeable there are 10 voters with an interest in his death. Now, there is a bit of double counting at the grandchild level because they may have expectations from the other big granddaddy, so let's count them as half. That is still 8 votes per taxable estate. So the 4% figure is deceptive, but on the downside.
    8 votes per estate? Many families have only 2-3 major/residual inheritors - the childrten - and the ones who get lump sums don't care abouit IHT.

    One thouight: this might discourage gifts to charities and the Tory Party. IHT immunities for those become irrelevant, so that much less motive.
    It would also lock up even more wealth with an even higher age group by removing the incentive to disperse assets before death.
    On that logic, then we ought to tax wealth full stop if the rich oldies aren't doing anything useful with it.
  • TresTres Posts: 2,724
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Or reduce wasteful government spending?

    Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
    The problem is twofold.

    * Not all government spending is wasteful government spending. If you have a sovereign state in a Westphalian world, then you have to pay for it. This neoliberalism idea of continually cutting the state has reached and passed its limit. We have to stop indulging in fantasy politics and start actually paying for things. Like normal people.
    * A shit-ton of government spending is debt repayment. You either default, dilute the debt away thru inflation, or pay it. Pick one.
    We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.

    In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/may2023

    That isn't a position amenable to tax cuts.
    No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
    I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
    The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
    When I was working in Netherlands the mother of one of my colleagues had terminal cancer and there was both a pre-funeral and post-funeral for her.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,914

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.

    It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.

    Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.

    Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.

    Or reduce wasteful government spending?

    Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
    The problem is twofold.

    * Not all government spending is wasteful government spending. If you have a sovereign state in a Westphalian world, then you have to pay for it. This neoliberalism idea of continually cutting the state has reached and passed its limit. We have to stop indulging in fantasy politics and start actually paying for things. Like normal people.
    * A shit-ton of government spending is debt repayment. You either default, dilute the debt away thru inflation, or pay it. Pick one.
    We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.

    In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/may2023

    That isn't a position amenable to tax cuts.
    No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
    I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
    The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
    Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
    Euthanised once you've exhausted your pension pot and lifetime NHS allowance. It is a bit dystopian.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,393
    Stocky said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Stocky said:

    I don't agree with Mr Smithson. I think most voters will applaud getting rid of IHT or as a de minimus raising the threshold to say 2 million. It's an inspirational thing that people support irrespective of whether it will affect them.

    Yes it is an aspirational thing, and Miklosvar is correct that beneficiaries are often left out when people talk about the proportion of the population concerned about IHT.

    Also true that far more people are more worried about potential care home fees than IHT.
    Thank you!!

    Of course there's a huge overlap. Much of the worry about care home fees is presumably from children seeing their inheritance eaten up.
    Yes, but also the old person him/herself. It is tremendously distressing to see the family home evaporating to the local council. It is, for many, their life's achievement which they thought would provide some security after their death to their loved ones.
    Be the same for bank savings or anything else. And houses with spouses arent' affected.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,516
    I hope everyone else is enjoying a few hand shandies about the prospect of the Duke of Marlborough saving money on his IHT bill, because I know I am.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,393
    Stocky said:

    FF43 said:

    nico679 said:

    Labour would need to be careful how they respond to the Tories scrapping IHT .

    It’s one of those taxes which most hate even if they’ll never benefit from it .

    On the face of it it’s a form of double taxation.

    I’m sure the policy will poll well and I’m sure will help the Tories in certain seats .

    I suspect a large part of the excess estates that trigger IHT are capital gains on homes, which aren't taxed at all.
    Well they are, in effect, by the eventual IHT.
    Not at current allowances. The RNRB is very substantial: even if one forgets the number of estates that pass 100% to the surviving spouse (another reason wht the 4 to 40% argument is dodgy - almost half of them collapse into another estate anyway).
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    Could an AI version of 76 year old Susan Sarandon look better than the real thing? I have my doubts.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,031

    O/T I see Goodwood Festival of Speed is cancelled today due to the potential for high winds. No doubt a sensible decision but that will cost the organisers dearly, and a big shame for anyone with tickets for today, of course.

    We were there yesterday and the persistent rain dampened the experience a bit but we still had a great time. God knows how many £millions of rare and exotic cars there were there, too many to see them all.

    Oh no, I know loads of people who were going there, some of them travelling from all the way out here. Refunds are promised, and presumably the decision was taken in conjunction with their insurers. Such a shame for everyone.

    For anyone who hasn’t been, it’s a brilliant event with hundreds of classic cars, all actually running rather than as exhibits, and with the paddock open to the public to walk around. Very much a contrast with the Grand Prix, where you have to spend a fortune on paddock club tickets to walk around the cars and meet the teams.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,947
    Stocky said:

    I don't agree with Mr Smithson. I think most voters will applaud getting rid of IHT or as a de minimus raising the threshold to say 2 million. It's an inspirational thing that people support irrespective of whether it will affect them.

    Yes it is an aspirational thing, and Miklosvar is correct that beneficiaries are often left out when people talk about the proportion of the population concerned about IHT.

    Also true that far more people are more worried about potential care home fees than IHT.
    I agree.

    Personally I don't have an issue with IHT or the paying for care home fees. I don't see why someone poorer than me should subsidise me so my children can inherit more.

    However as @HYUFD will correctly point out it does influence the vote of many of those who either want to leave money to their children, children who will inherit money, or even those who don't fall into these categories but aspire to.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987

    I hope everyone else is enjoying a few hand shandies about the prospect of the Duke of Marlborough saving money on his IHT bill, because I know I am.

    The Churchills have been Liberals and Tories and live in Oxfordshire, key swing voters for Rishi in the bluewall!
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,914
    edited July 2023
    Is the President of South Korea the first world leader to bring their spouse with them when visiting Ukraine, since the full-scale invasion?

    https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20230715001251315
This discussion has been closed.