From a different angle, it is very likely that the inheritance tax cut angle is part of the weird Sunak strategy of talking and briefing to the media a very right wing agenda whilst not really delivering it. So it won't happen.
One final thought on inheritance tax. The net worth of the median household is £302,500, so they would be unaffected by any change. It's not until you reach somewhere between the top 15-20%, that net wealth reaches £1m, meaning most households below that level would be unaffected, due to double relief for married couples, and main residence relief for lineal descendants. Some single person households, and some households without lineal descendants, below that level, would benefit from scrapping/cutting IHT, but the number would not be huge. Conversely, some households above that level have already structured their affairs to avoid IHT.
Scrapping IHT would deliver a very big benefit to a small section of the population. Raising income tax thresholds would deliver a much smaller benefit, but it would go to every income tax payer. That is a lot fairer.
The average house is now worth £362k according to Rightmove ie above the IHT threshold.
What is 'fair' is based on your perspective. An unemployed single mother on benefits aged 55 would benefit more from an IHT cut as her elderly parents live in a £1.5m home in Surrey for example than a banker earning 6 figures would benefit from an income tax cut
The single mother on benefits, if we retain IHT, gets £1.3 m, rather than £1.5m, which is no big hardship. The banker on his big salary may be in line to inherit nothing.
Single mothers who are due to inherit £1.5m, and bankers who are due to inherit nothing, are probably highly untypical. The median household is most unlikely to be affected by changes to IHT, but will certainly benefit from changes to income tax.
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
Yes it does, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 exempted the Church of England and every other Christian denomination and religion from having to perform full homosexual marriage services in their place of worship.
Adultery is legal, prostitution in private is legal. Do you think the C of E should also have services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes and their clients?
Ah, you added the last bit.
Ask this chap called Jesus Christ. He was rather hot on blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers, as I recall.
So you are saying the C of E is not Christian?
Christ blessed the sinnner but NOT the sin as you well know. So no Christian church could bless the act of adultery or prostitution
YOu said "services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes", cvarefully cut and pasted before you go backi and change it.
I used the same: blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers.
Now you're saying something completely different and claiming it was alweays about that. Believe me, that doesn't win any arguments.
You cannot bless the act of prostitution and adultery and be a Christian compliant with the Bible.
Have you ever met a "Christian compliant with the Bible"? One who sold all his possessions and gave the money to the poor? Someone who didn't give any thought to what would happen to him tomorrow? Someone who walked away and left his father's corpse to be buried by the dead?
You know sometimes I even suspect Jesus may not have been a Conservative.
Catholic priests for example live in a house provided by the church and have only pocket money. Nuns and monks sell all their possessions before entering a monastery or convent and often do work with foodbanks, homeless shelters, the sick, prisoners etc as do priests.
Though of course that was for those who wanted to be true disciples, Jesus himself was originally a carpenter and as in the parable of the talents he wanted others to do well in their chosen field and save and invest profitably but also give charity to the poor.
Presumably there's some way of distinguishing between the bits of the Bible that apply only to "true disciples" and the ones that apply to the other (non-true) believers? I'd recommend for clarity they should be printed in a different coloured ink or something.
In the absence of an ex cathedra pronouncement from HYUFD, I think I'll assume that the more stringent stuff about sex, like the more stringent stuff about money, applies only to the keener believers, not the ordinary ones.
Perhaps on the whole it would seem fairer if it were the other way round, but I can't really believe God would be, in effect, asking people to give up money in return for being allowed to have sex.
One final thought on inheritance tax. The net worth of the median household is £302,500, so they would be unaffected by any change. It's not until you reach somewhere between the top 15-20%, that net wealth reaches £1m, meaning most households below that level would be unaffected, due to double relief for married couples, and main residence relief for lineal descendants. Some single person households, and some households without lineal descendants, below that level, would benefit from scrapping/cutting IHT, but the number would not be huge. Conversely, some households above that level have already structured their affairs to avoid IHT.
Scrapping IHT would deliver a very big benefit to a small section of the population. Raising income tax thresholds would deliver a much smaller benefit, but it would go to every income tax payer. That is a lot fairer.
The average house is now worth £362k according to Rightmove ie above the IHT threshold.
What is 'fair' is based on your perspective. An unemployed single mother on benefits aged 55 would benefit more from an IHT cut as her elderly parents live in a £1.5m home in Surrey for example than a banker earning 6 figures would benefit from an income tax cut
The single mother on benefits, if we retain IHT, gets £1.3 m, rather than £1.5m, which is no big hardship. The banker on his big salary may be in line to inherit nothing.
Single mothers who are due to inherit £1.5m, and bankers who are due to inherit nothing, are probably highly untypical. The median household is most unlikely to be affected by changes to IHT, but will certainly benefit from changes to income tax.
That £200k difference would be a lot for her. The banker may have been born in a council house and inherit next to nothing but he is already comfortably a millionaire anyway.
Even the median household in London and the South if their parents are divorced or they inherit from a non parental relative or friend will be affected by IHT
Is there much to think about when choosing a primary school for your 5 year old? I’ve just visited one, and wouldn’t know a good from bad (OFSTED visited yesterday so should get an idea from that)
It’s the nearest one to our house, the only one within walking distance, most local kids go there… that’s enough in my book I think
Ask them about their gender books and sex education policy.
You know, outside my children’s playschool they have a rainbow flag poster with something like “Everyone deserves love, respect, empathy…” etc etc written on it, and I have been close to asking why it’s necessary for 2-4 year olds to see it. It feels a bit like politicising courtesy/softening them up for later life, but I’ve not said anything.
The headmaster of the school I visited must be 1/10 to be gay, so I’d struggle to ask what you suggest even more than if he were not, for fear of my son not getting the 50/50 calls because of it.
Our local primary has always had rainbow flags up during pride week and teaches children basic things like the fact some kids have 2 dads or 2 mums (and in this school the latter is reasonably common) and it's OK to be different. I would say that kind of basic early messaging, before playground teasing gets going in earnest in years 5+, is one reason why our son was comfortable with coming out as gay early on in secondary school rather than bottling it up.
We did as others suggest: went around a few schools. Once you've done that you really get a sense of which atmospheres you're happier with. The one we chose was not the most academic locally but was closest, seemed very happy if occasionally a little chaotic, and had a headteacher who seemed to know all the pupils by name and was friendly to parents.
One final thought on inheritance tax. The net worth of the median household is £302,500, so they would be unaffected by any change. It's not until you reach somewhere between the top 15-20%, that net wealth reaches £1m, meaning most households below that level would be unaffected, due to double relief for married couples, and main residence relief for lineal descendants. Some single person households, and some households without lineal descendants, below that level, would benefit from scrapping/cutting IHT, but the number would not be huge. Conversely, some households above that level have already structured their affairs to avoid IHT.
Scrapping IHT would deliver a very big benefit to a small section of the population. Raising income tax thresholds would deliver a much smaller benefit, but it would go to every income tax payer. That is a lot fairer.
SKS is probably hoping they choose to use any 'headroom' to cut IHT rather than raise allowances. It would be an open goal for him. I know it's a particularly and irrationally hated tax but I can't see cutting it being the best political bang for their buck at the present time.
Protesters cheer outside the Democratic National Committee headquarters on Wednesday. | Nathan Howard/AP
CHICAGO — A pro-Palestinian protest at Democratic Party headquarters in Washington, D.C., that turned violent is sending a jolt through political circles in Chicago, which plans to host the party’s presidential nominating convention this summer.
Is there much to think about when choosing a primary school for your 5 year old? I’ve just visited one, and wouldn’t know a good from bad (OFSTED visited yesterday so should get an idea from that)
It’s the nearest one to our house, the only one within walking distance, most local kids go there… that’s enough in my book I think
Look at the Secondary school that it feeds to, and also the outdoor playing area.
Proximity matters a lot. Not just for the school run, but also you will find that having the child's friends nearby good for socialising, for parents as well as the little one.
The outdoor area is good, and they have a forest school too, which seems like a lovely idea
Just on the US, I happen to have a hunch that Joe won't run, think I've posted as much a few times, but surely ignoring my 'intuition' and going rationally by the evidence available he shouldn't be as long as 1.45 for the Dem Nom, should he? I mean, where is that price coming from?
I have a similar hunch. The last few times I’ve heard him speak he sounds incredibly frail, no bloopers or signs of dementia, just that papery thin tone from a very old person, possibly in a sickbed. I can’t believe that this doesn’t have something to do with his ratings in face of reasonably good economic figures, people just think he couldn’t or shouldn’t do 4 more years.
U know who otoh sound full of vim and vigour even when spouting incoherent fascistic rubbish.
Yes, unfortunately the Ghastly One at 77 has a very robust air about him. You get the impression he could keep on rolling for years and years yet. It's a damn shame and 100% proof of no god.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
My view is that it's better for people to have money when they start working, rather than having to wait 30 years for their relatives to drop off, before gaining a windfall.
I am going to inherit a lot, over the next ten years, in all likelihood, but at the age of 56, it's of limited use.
That's why it's better to put the available sums into the pockets of workers.
It's no wonder young people aren't voting Conservative.
If you look at 1979, when Margaret Thatcher won over young people, it's because she was absolutely on their side of getting on against the stultifying practices of ideological councils and trade unions.
Because of the rise in inflation, fiscal drag means the government is taking far more income tax than was anticipated in 2021, when the rate freeze was announced. By far the best thing the government could do would be to raise the personal allowance and higher rate threshold by 10-15% each. And, that would be unlikely to be reversed by an incoming Labour government.
Even getting a few thousand extra a year however in income would not ultimately match getting a house worth £350-£700k IHT tax free (and most homes south of Watford are within that band)
Why would one wish to wait thirty years to hit the jackpot when a rich relative dies, rather than earn this money in one's 20's, 30's, and 40's.
As if you used a calculator you would work out it would make you richer in the longer term, assuming you weren't run over by a bus beforehand and house prices didn't collapse completely to inherit say a £500k house from your parents IHT free in a few decades (or much earlier if you get a big inheritance from a grandparent) even if you have to pay a bit more in income tax and NI on your earnings now
It's pretty cold comfort to inherit a lot, as one approaches retirement, rather than to have money when it is of most to you.
And, about 50% of people will never inherit anything of significance. It is far better to motivate people to work hard, rather than turn them into drones waiting for a windfall.
Arguably retirement is when it is most of use to you as you are no longer earning a wage at work, you only have a pension to rely on income wise other than any wealth you have inherited or shares or rental income for the few who are landlords.
Given the average house price is nearly £300k in the UK as a whole (and far more in London and the home counties) most will now inherit a significant sum
Oh, good. I'll wait until then to take the kids to Disneyworld.
On the plus side, they'll all be big enough to go on all the rides.
Comments
NEW THREAD
The single mother on benefits, if we retain IHT, gets £1.3 m, rather than £1.5m, which is no big hardship. The banker on his big salary may be in line to inherit nothing.
Single mothers who are due to inherit £1.5m, and bankers who are due to inherit nothing, are probably highly untypical. The median household is most unlikely to be affected by changes to IHT, but will certainly benefit from changes to income tax.
Perhaps on the whole it would seem fairer if it were the other way round, but I can't really believe God would be, in effect, asking people to give up money in return for being allowed to have sex.
Even the median household in London and the South if their parents are divorced or they inherit from a non parental relative or friend will be affected by IHT
We did as others suggest: went around a few schools. Once you've done that you really get a sense of which atmospheres you're happier with. The one we chose was not the most academic locally but was closest, seemed very happy if occasionally a little chaotic, and had a headteacher who seemed to know all the pupils by name and was friendly to parents.
🔴 Lab 45% (-3)
🔵 Con 25% (+1)
🟠 LD 11% (+2)
⚪ Ref 10% (+2)
🟢 Green 5% (-1)
🟡 SNP 3% (NC)
Protesters cheer outside the Democratic National Committee headquarters on Wednesday. | Nathan Howard/AP
CHICAGO — A pro-Palestinian protest at Democratic Party headquarters in Washington, D.C., that turned violent is sending a jolt through political circles in Chicago, which plans to host the party’s presidential nominating convention this summer.
Politico
How will this work , can one household block it ? Or will it be forced if a majority agree .
Surely the quickest way to devaluing your home is to have pylons put up next to it !
On the plus side, they'll all be big enough to go on all the rides.