Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Why cutting inheritance tax may be popular – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,014
edited November 2023 in General
Why cutting inheritance tax may be popular – politicalbetting.com

61% of Britons think inheritance tax is unfair – but why is that? Here are the top reasons they gave…Has already been taxed: 42% of those who consider it unfairShould be able to leave it all: 17%Punishes being responsible: 11%Threshold too low: 10%https://t.co/fq1cHSEOwf pic.twitter.com/ALyBcTGdQG

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • Options
    First like Liverpool at circa 2.30pm, I hope.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,561
    edited November 2023
    I suspect it won't win many votes directly but might shore up existing support. While not many estates will benefit, the large legacies that will often have several significant beneficiaries. I can't find any statistics on this, but if each estate has three or four such on average, and 7% of estates are subject to IHT, that is a very significant block of voters (though some may of course benefit from more than one estate).

    I'd rather spend any spare money on cutting taxes on labour or business profits, but this cut is better than nothing.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    Second, like Man City at 2:30pm.
  • Options
    If "already been taxed" is a criterion then what about VAT? You pay it on goods and services bought with already taxed income.
  • Options
    IcarusIcarus Posts: 898
    OT: Are the 61% who say tax has already been paid proposing that there should be capital gains tax on their houses?
  • Options

    If "already been taxed" is a criterion then what about VAT? You pay it on goods and services bought with already taxed income.

    Plus if inheritance tax is paid on unrealised capital gains, eg on the primary residence, then it hasn't been taxed already!
  • Options
    Icarus said:

    OT: Are the 61% who say tax has already been paid proposing that there should be capital gains tax on their houses?

    Great minds...
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,339
    Sandpit said:

    Second, like Man City at 2:30pm.

    Man City will be Second division.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,339
    edited November 2023
    Inheritance tax is an aspiration thing. People loathe it even if they will never pay it as it stinks of unfairness....increasing Inheritance tax allowance to 1 million per person is the first step.
    Noone has to pay IHT if they set up a trust.
  • Options

    People hate government touching their homes.

    They view IHT as exactly that.

    Yes I think that's the reason. An Englishman's home is his castle and you touch his capital gains on it at your peril.
  • Options
    Fishing said:

    I suspect it won't win many votes directly but might shore up existing support. While not many estates will benefit, the large legacies that will often have several significant beneficiaries. I can't find any statistics on this, but if each estate has three or four such on average, and 7% of estates are subject to IHT, that is a very significant block of voters (though some may of course benefit from more than one estate).

    I'd rather spend any spare money on cutting taxes on labour or business profits, but this cut is better than nothing.

    The average detached house price in England is now well over the primary IHT threshold, meaning what most people aspire to would be technically liable, and isn't far off even the higher level with the nil-rate band:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-house-price-index-for-january-2023

    People get frustrated that their family homes are taxed out whilst the super-rich can use shell companies and financial advisors to pay so little.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,960

    People hate government touching their homes.

    They view IHT as exactly that.

    Yes I think that's the reason. An Englishman's home is his castle and you touch his capital gains on it at your peril.
    Good morning everybody. Lovely bright one here.

    It’s odd, this obsession with owning one’s own home; other Europeans don’t seem to be as bothered.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,561

    Inheritance tax is an aspiration thing. People loathe it even if they will never pay it as it stinks of unfairness....increasing Inheritance tax allowance to 1 million per person is the first step.
    Noone has to pay IHT if they set up a trust.

    No but they have to pay incredibly expensive lawyers and other scum instead and pay them again and again every time the government fiddles with the rules. Unless your fortune is gigantic you're often better off just taking the bite. More than one relative of mine has made that calculation.
  • Options
    IcarusIcarus Posts: 898

    Sandpit said:

    Second, like Man City at 2:30pm.

    Man City will be Second division.
    They will enjoy playing at Barrow!
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    It was interesting that in the 2010 debates the 'worm' following the immediate approval/disapproval reaction of audiences when Cameron was talking in the dates was highest when he was talking about inheritance tax.

    However, it didn't win him a majority.

    If I'm honest I would have said what would be considerably more useful certainly in the medium term than inheritance tax cuts is sorting out the positively labyrinthine system of probate. It's better than it was but it's still a mess and needs to be knocked down and started again from scratch.

    But - there aren't many headlines in that.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,960
    Icarus said:

    Sandpit said:

    Second, like Man City at 2:30pm.

    Man City will be Second division.
    They will enjoy playing at Barrow!
    Bit like Glasgow Rangers a few years ago!
  • Options
    Icarus said:

    Sandpit said:

    Second, like Man City at 2:30pm.

    Man City will be Second division.
    They will enjoy playing at Barrow!
    Serious point: if you are a Barrow supporter, consider buying a season ticket in order to watch Man City next year. Of course, if they are relegated somewhere else, choose a different local club.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    edited November 2023

    Icarus said:

    Sandpit said:

    Second, like Man City at 2:30pm.

    Man City will be Second division.
    They will enjoy playing at Barrow!
    Bit like Glasgow Rangers a few years ago!
    I was thinking of you just now OKC (in a good way!) because Essex CCC have yet again demonstrated just what a decent bunch they are:

    https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/middlesex-to-play-home-blast-matches-at-essex-to-alleviate-financial-pressures-1410133

    Lending your ground to a friend and rival to dig them out of a financial hole? That's sportmanship.

    I have to say though, what a shambles for Middlesex. No particular fan of them but the mess regarding Lord's really needs sorting out.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,717
    Individual policies can be popular, even most of a party's individual policies might be, yet still not help them be popular. That's politics for you.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,409
    edited November 2023
    Human nature (and this includes me) tends not to be "weigh up all the reasons, then come to a conclusion" as much as "have a guy reaction, then seek to justify it".

    It's understandable that people fear/dislike/resent any taxes. And IHT is a very lumpy, very visible tax. Something similar happens with the dislike of the licence fee.

    And there is something in Casino's point about family homes. I'm not sure it's a good thing; imagine of all the money people have put into bidding house prices up had gone on something useful instead. And a society where some people just inherit a place to live and others have to pay a fortune for one isn't likely to be a good one. But we are where we are and we all aspire to be Audrey Forbes-Hamilton.

    The catch is that the state sector of society needs to be paid for somehow. So either taxes go up, the government stops doing things (diversity officers won't cover it), or we catch an Efficiency Fairy or ten. And they're real but hard to catch.

    (See also council budgets this coming year. The gap between central government constrained income and central government mandated expenditure looks like it's going to be impossible to bridge in quite a few sensible places.)
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    edited November 2023
    Incidentally I see Leon is enjoying Phnomh Penh very much.

    Or at least, I assume so from the way he's writing about Ukraine.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,960
    ydoethur said:

    Icarus said:

    Sandpit said:

    Second, like Man City at 2:30pm.

    Man City will be Second division.
    They will enjoy playing at Barrow!
    Bit like Glasgow Rangers a few years ago!
    I was thinking of you just now OKC (in a good way!) because Essex CCC have yet again demonstrated just what a decent bunch they are:

    https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/middlesex-to-play-home-blast-matches-at-essex-to-alleviate-financial-pressures-1410133

    Lending your ground to a friend and rival to dig them out of a financial hole? That's sportmanship.

    I have to say though, what a shambles for Middlesex. No particular fan of them but the mess regarding Lord's really needs sorting out.
    Thanks; sadly, I’ve had to discontinue my membership of Essex cricket, due to ill health. I can’t get to the ground anymore.
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    Individual policies can be popular, even most of a party's individual policies might be, yet still not help them be popular. That's politics for you.

    How many of us (even here) go through the details of all the policies in the manifesto? I'm pretty sure most voters' calculation is more a mix of "how do I regard the world (left/right etc)" and which potential PM looks the part more.
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    Individual policies can be popular, even most of a party's individual policies might be, yet still not help them be popular. That's politics for you.

    Corbyn was the classic case for this. His supporters online would constantly post polling that showed majorities for his policies but the public distrust of Corbyn's competence meant it was irrelevant.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,717
    But are they tasty? I note the scientists say they are eaten in the Phillipines but I don't see if they mention if any of them have done it.

    Scientists at a Devon university are hoping to become the first in the world to farm a marine pest for food production.

    The University of Plymouth said shipworms, renamed "naked clams" to make them more marketable, had been viewed as a pest due to them boring through wood underwater, including shipwrecks and docks.

    In a study, they said they had found the saltwater clams converted wood into a "highly nutritious protein" which was high in levels of Vitamin B12 - almost twice that found in blue mussels.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4prrgqd68o
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I see Leon is enjoying Phnomh Penh very much.

    Or at least, I assume so from the way he's writing about Ukraine.

    Is there some weird PB rule that you can only comment about the place you’re in?

    I could bombard you with photos of my free Cambodian meals if you REALLY insist
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I see Leon is enjoying Phnomh Penh very much.

    Or at least, I assume so from the way he's writing about Ukraine.

    Is there some weird PB rule that you can only comment about the place you’re in?

    I could bombard you with photos of my free Cambodian meals if you REALLY insist
    I was just thinking, you only write apocalypse porn when you're having a really good time.

    Usually aided by something else.

    Hope you are enjoying your enormous swimming pool, anyway.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,886

    People hate government touching their homes.

    They view IHT as exactly that.

    Agree. It's like Corbyn branding May's social care idea a "death tax".

    Stealth reform of council tax is the way to go.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,192
    I heard Hunt on R4 saying more than once that he had not done the "popular" things but those that were focused on improving growth. I caught a hint that there had perhaps been some tension between himself and Rishi on the point. When your highlight is undoing a serious mistake by your boss who had increased NI it is not hard to see that. Hunt is in a strong position and took advantage of that to produce a package that has been as well received as any for some considerable time.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    People hate government touching their homes.

    They view IHT as exactly that.

    Yes I think that's the reason. An Englishman's home is his castle and you touch his capital gains on it at your peril.
    Good morning everybody. Lovely bright one here.

    It’s odd, this obsession with owning one’s own home; other Europeans don’t seem to be as bothered.
    Here in Spain there is a very streong desire for home ownership - even many flat dwelling renters in towns will often have a holoiday home in campo or costa. In some countries less so but even then many rent simply as owning is too expensive.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,183
    I intend avoiding inheritance tax.

    Mainly by giving it away to plant nurseries.

    My children will inherit the earth.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    Cyclefree said:

    I intend avoiding inheritance tax.

    Mainly by giving it away to plant nurseries.

    My children will inherit the earth.

    Plant nurseries? Is that where they train Civil Servants?
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,183
    Cyclefree said:

    I intend avoiding inheritance tax.

    Mainly by giving it away to plant nurseries.

    My children will inherit the earth.

    Why, yes: I have my coat. First frost of the season here.

    😀
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    OT. Interesting film on Netflix which seems to be causing ructions. Scored 100% on Rotten Toms and 8.1 on IMDB from 82,000 viewers. "Farha" is an excellent low budget film. Sparse dialogue and action scenes which are primarily created by sound effects and lighting it tells the story of a young girl in a small Palestinian village when the Israelis arrived in 1948. It was the Jordanian Foreign language entry for the 2023 Oscars. A better watch than Napoleon!

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/30/farha-israel-condemns-new-netflix-film-for-showing-palestinian
  • Options
    Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,814

    kle4 said:

    Individual policies can be popular, even most of a party's individual policies might be, yet still not help them be popular. That's politics for you.

    How many of us (even here) go through the details of all the policies in the manifesto? I'm pretty sure most voters' calculation is more a mix of "how do I regard the world (left/right etc)" and which potential PM looks the part more.
    Oh, they do.
    Unless the discussion is on FPTP versus other systems, in which case the voters all go through each manifesto when they are launched, decide which one they approve of in entirety, and vote for it.
    Or, in some arguments, the voters weigh up the candidates and vote for one of those. Depends on the argument.

    It’s certainly not voting based on perceived ideologies and mindsets, or party leaders.

    Either way, though, it’s clear that opinion polls can’t exist in any meaningful sense outside of campaigns. Not until manifestoes and/or candidates are fully known.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I intend avoiding inheritance tax.

    Mainly by giving it away to plant nurseries.

    My children will inherit the earth.

    I plan to avoid inheritance tax by not being rich enough and I am well on target so far.
    An attorney who isn't rich?

    Do you run a farm on the side?
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,339
    Fishing said:

    Inheritance tax is an aspiration thing. People loathe it even if they will never pay it as it stinks of unfairness....increasing Inheritance tax allowance to 1 million per person is the first step.
    Noone has to pay IHT if they set up a trust.

    No but they have to pay incredibly expensive lawyers and other scum instead and pay them again and again every time the government fiddles with the rules. Unless your fortune is gigantic you're often better off just taking the bite. More than one relative of mine has made that calculation.
    Nah. It cost me 1500
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,183
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I intend avoiding inheritance tax.

    Mainly by giving it away to plant nurseries.

    My children will inherit the earth.

    Plant nurseries? Is that where they train Civil Servants?
    I've met plants with more brains than many in government.

    Were it not for me travelling today you'd be getting an earful about the entirely unsurprising discovery that Business Ministers have been bare-faced lying to Parliamentary Select Committees about Post Office bonus schemes. Maybe later.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,960
    felix said:

    People hate government touching their homes.

    They view IHT as exactly that.

    Yes I think that's the reason. An Englishman's home is his castle and you touch his capital gains on it at your peril.
    Good morning everybody. Lovely bright one here.

    It’s odd, this obsession with owning one’s own home; other Europeans don’t seem to be as bothered.
    Here in Spain there is a very streong desire for home ownership - even many flat dwelling renters in towns will often have a holoiday home in campo or costa. In some countries less so but even then many rent simply as owning is too expensive.
    Noted! Thanks
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,183
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I intend avoiding inheritance tax.

    Mainly by giving it away to plant nurseries.

    My children will inherit the earth.

    I plan to avoid inheritance tax by not being rich enough and I am well on target so far.
    Well so am I. I have 3 children. The best route to not being rich known to woman.
  • Options
    Eabhal said:

    People hate government touching their homes.

    They view IHT as exactly that.

    Agree. It's like Corbyn branding May's social care idea a "death tax".

    Stealth reform of council tax is the way to go.
    It was newspapers and not Jeremy Corbyn who called Theresa May's policy a "death tax". Corbyn may have called it a tax on dementia but the other term comes from the American right via Fleet Street.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,635
    edited November 2023
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I intend avoiding inheritance tax.

    Mainly by giving it away to plant nurseries.

    My children will inherit the earth.

    I plan to avoid inheritance tax by not being rich enough and I am well on target so far.
    An attorney who isn't rich?

    Do you run a farm on the side?
    Not unless you can call 3 children a farm. That's where my money went.

    But the really big difference is that in my part of Scotland housing is still comparatively cheap. This is where the "already taxed" point is wrong. Most people caught by IHT are in it because their house, which has not been taxed, has appreciated considerably over the last 20 years.
    Excellent point. I was going to make it as well till you did it better.

    Coincidentally the Graun ran this interactive map recently.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2023/nov/21/find-out-where-you-can-afford-to-buy-or-rent-in-great-britain
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    I heard Hunt on R4 saying more than once that he had not done the "popular" things but those that were focused on improving growth. I caught a hint that there had perhaps been some tension between himself and Rishi on the point. When your highlight is undoing a serious mistake by your boss who had increased NI it is not hard to see that. Hunt is in a strong position and took advantage of that to produce a package that has been as well received as any for some considerable time.

    My view is that Hunt is essentially running the Government, and I think bringing Cameron back is another sign of that. I see Rishi as a kind of infant Chinese Emperor figure, with Hunt and Suella as his Eunuchs and Courtesans (which is which I'll leave for others to decide).
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,960
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I intend avoiding inheritance tax.

    Mainly by giving it away to plant nurseries.

    My children will inherit the earth.

    I plan to avoid inheritance tax by not being rich enough and I am well on target so far.
    Well so am I. I have 3 children. The best route to not being rich known to woman.
    Certainly applies to myself, and it would appear to my younger son.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    Icarus said:

    OT: Are the 61% who say tax has already been paid proposing that there should be capital gains tax on their houses?

    Presumably they don't like paying alcohol duty, VAT, fuel duty etc for the same reason.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    It was interesting that in the 2010 debates the 'worm' following the immediate approval/disapproval reaction of audiences when Cameron was talking in the dates was highest when he was talking about inheritance tax.

    However, it didn't win him a majority.

    If I'm honest I would have said what would be considerably more useful certainly in the medium term than inheritance tax cuts is sorting out the positively labyrinthine system of probate. It's better than it was but it's still a mess and needs to be knocked down and started again from scratch.

    But - there aren't many headlines in that.

    My sister and I are dealing with our mother's estate at the moment. I'm a bit puzzled by the comment that probate is "labrynthine". We've found it pretty straightforward. Are you referring to the number of IHT forms? There are a lot of those, but that's about IHT, not probate.
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I intend avoiding inheritance tax.

    Mainly by giving it away to plant nurseries.

    My children will inherit the earth.

    I plan to avoid inheritance tax by not being rich enough and I am well on target so far.
    An attorney who isn't rich?

    Do you run a farm on the side?
    Not unless you can call 3 children a farm. That's where my money went.

    But the really big difference is that in my part of Scotland housing is still comparatively cheap. This is where the "already taxed" point is wrong. Most people caught by IHT are in it because their house, which has not been taxed, has appreciated considerably over the last 20 years.
    Excellent point. I was going to make it as well till you did it better.

    Coincidentally the Graun ran this interactive map recently.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2023/nov/21/find-out-where-you-can-afford-to-buy-or-rent-in-great-britain
    To adapt a common PB meme, windfalls should be taxed, just not my windfall.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,554
    Halving the IHT rate, removing the automatic CGT step up in business assets on death, and reintroducing retirement relief for ages from 60-70 would be eminently sensible and I expect would bring in more revenue than now.

    All that aside though, looking at the treasury numbers from the Autumn Statement the spending cliff edge Hunt used to pay for his measures (post election of course) is both frightening and unrealistic. That’s the biggest scam in the whole thing- they bagged the revenue benefit of inflation through fiscal drag, but pretend inflation doesn’t exist in public sector spending.

    Labour are walking into a fiscal disaster made by their predecessors and Reeves appears paralysed by this and unwilling to challenge it.
  • Options
    felix said:

    People hate government touching their homes.

    They view IHT as exactly that.

    Yes I think that's the reason. An Englishman's home is his castle and you touch his capital gains on it at your peril.
    Good morning everybody. Lovely bright one here.

    It’s odd, this obsession with owning one’s own home; other Europeans don’t seem to be as bothered.
    Here in Spain there is a very streong desire for home ownership - even many flat dwelling renters in towns will often have a holoiday home in campo or costa. In some countries less so but even then many rent simply as owning is too expensive.
    My impression from living in Germany was that people very much saw home ownership as the preferred option and all the wealthier people I knew tended to own, but there wasn't really any anxiety about not buying.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,192
    Unpopular said:

    DavidL said:

    I heard Hunt on R4 saying more than once that he had not done the "popular" things but those that were focused on improving growth. I caught a hint that there had perhaps been some tension between himself and Rishi on the point. When your highlight is undoing a serious mistake by your boss who had increased NI it is not hard to see that. Hunt is in a strong position and took advantage of that to produce a package that has been as well received as any for some considerable time.

    My view is that Hunt is essentially running the Government, and I think bringing Cameron back is another sign of that. I see Rishi as a kind of infant Chinese Emperor figure, with Hunt and Suella as his Eunuchs and Courtesans (which is which I'll leave for others to decide).
    That's an interesting idea. We were all looking for a Mandelson figure who could get a grip and it turns out that he is already there.

    It's interesting quite how quiet Braverman has been since her sacking. I suspect that we have not heard the last of her but it has not had the destabilising effect that she and others anticipated.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    @TSE

    I have mailed you a possibly interesting threader.

    Enjoy the match, I am a little nervous of Leicesters blip in form, Watford seem good value for the away win at 6.2.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,635
    edited November 2023
    ydoethur said:

    It was interesting that in the 2010 debates the 'worm' following the immediate approval/disapproval reaction of audiences when Cameron was talking in the dates was highest when he was talking about inheritance tax.

    However, it didn't win him a majority.

    If I'm honest I would have said what would be considerably more useful certainly in the medium term than inheritance tax cuts is sorting out the positively labyrinthine system of probate. It's better than it was but it's still a mess and needs to be knocked down and started again from scratch.

    But - there aren't many headlines in that.

    Dunnoi what it is like in England but the Scottish system has several archaic quirks in how to fill in the form for probate that are not explained to the laic wanting to DIY - and has added a couple in the last 10 years. If I were doing it again DIY I'd gather together the data and then give them to the lawyer to fill in and handle the probate grant. Mind, doing the data gathering got me an extra 10K or so when I spotted an error by the life assurance firm, so not all bad ...

    That's quite separate from getting the valuation and if need be the full HMRC documentation done.
  • Options
    TimS said:

    Halving the IHT rate, removing the automatic CGT step up in business assets on death, and reintroducing retirement relief for ages from 60-70 would be eminently sensible and I expect would bring in more revenue than now.

    All that aside though, looking at the treasury numbers from the Autumn Statement the spending cliff edge Hunt used to pay for his measures (post election of course) is both frightening and unrealistic. That’s the biggest scam in the whole thing- they bagged the revenue benefit of inflation through fiscal drag, but pretend inflation doesn’t exist in public sector spending.

    Labour are walking into a fiscal disaster made by their predecessors and Reeves appears paralysed by this and unwilling to challenge it.

    We need to get beyond taxing people ever more each year so we can run to stand still.

    The State doles out too much welfare, and doesn't invest enough in our future where it really good make a difference.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,554
    Unpopular said:

    felix said:

    People hate government touching their homes.

    They view IHT as exactly that.

    Yes I think that's the reason. An Englishman's home is his castle and you touch his capital gains on it at your peril.
    Good morning everybody. Lovely bright one here.

    It’s odd, this obsession with owning one’s own home; other Europeans don’t seem to be as bothered.
    Here in Spain there is a very streong desire for home ownership - even many flat dwelling renters in towns will often have a holoiday home in campo or costa. In some countries less so but even then many rent simply as owning is too expensive.
    My impression from living in Germany was that people very much saw home ownership as the preferred option and all the wealthier people I knew tended to own, but there wasn't really any anxiety about not buying.
    I think the anxiety is created by the constant upward trend in prices, which means if you can’t afford to buy now then perhaps you’ll never be able to afford to buy. A few years of falling prices would probably help that anxiety.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I see Leon is enjoying Phnomh Penh very much.

    Or at least, I assume so from the way he's writing about Ukraine.

    Is there some weird PB rule that you can only comment about the place you’re in?

    I could bombard you with photos of my free Cambodian meals if you REALLY insist
    I was just thinking, you only write apocalypse porn when you're having a really good time.

    Usually aided by something else.

    Hope you are enjoying your enormous swimming pool, anyway.
    It has been a fabulous trip

    Only now coloured by the fact that, for professional reasons, tomorrow afternoon I have to go and eat a dog
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578

    TimS said:

    Halving the IHT rate, removing the automatic CGT step up in business assets on death, and reintroducing retirement relief for ages from 60-70 would be eminently sensible and I expect would bring in more revenue than now.

    All that aside though, looking at the treasury numbers from the Autumn Statement the spending cliff edge Hunt used to pay for his measures (post election of course) is both frightening and unrealistic. That’s the biggest scam in the whole thing- they bagged the revenue benefit of inflation through fiscal drag, but pretend inflation doesn’t exist in public sector spending.

    Labour are walking into a fiscal disaster made by their predecessors and Reeves appears paralysed by this and unwilling to challenge it.

    We need to get beyond taxing people ever more each year so we can run to stand still.

    The State doles out too much welfare, and doesn't invest enough in our future where it really good make a difference.
    The only real prospects for cutting the welfare budget are freezing pensions, UC and Housing benefit. None of that is easy or electorally cheap.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,635
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I see Leon is enjoying Phnomh Penh very much.

    Or at least, I assume so from the way he's writing about Ukraine.

    Is there some weird PB rule that you can only comment about the place you’re in?

    I could bombard you with photos of my free Cambodian meals if you REALLY insist
    I was just thinking, you only write apocalypse porn when you're having a really good time.

    Usually aided by something else.

    Hope you are enjoying your enormous swimming pool, anyway.
    It has been a fabulous trip

    Only now coloured by the fact that, for professional reasons, tomorrow afternoon I have to go and eat a dog
    Live, like those weird fish or cephalopod dishes one sees on Youtube?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I see Leon is enjoying Phnomh Penh very much.

    Or at least, I assume so from the way he's writing about Ukraine.

    Is there some weird PB rule that you can only comment about the place you’re in?

    I could bombard you with photos of my free Cambodian meals if you REALLY insist
    I was just thinking, you only write apocalypse porn when you're having a really good time.

    Usually aided by something else.

    Hope you are enjoying your enormous swimming pool, anyway.
    It has been a fabulous trip

    Only now coloured by the fact that, for professional reasons, tomorrow afternoon I have to go and eat a dog
    I'm a Celeb moved from Aus rather abruptly?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937
    For the first time in my life, I've just paid for a gym membership.

    As you get older, you spend increasing amounts of money trying to regain the body you so readily abused when you were twenty....
  • Options
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I see Leon is enjoying Phnomh Penh very much.

    Or at least, I assume so from the way he's writing about Ukraine.

    Is there some weird PB rule that you can only comment about the place you’re in?

    I could bombard you with photos of my free Cambodian meals if you REALLY insist
    I was just thinking, you only write apocalypse porn when you're having a really good time.

    Usually aided by something else.

    Hope you are enjoying your enormous swimming pool, anyway.
    It has been a fabulous trip

    Only now coloured by the fact that, for professional reasons, tomorrow afternoon I have to go and eat a dog
    Karma suggests you will be savaged by a Bully XL at some point in the near future.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I see Leon is enjoying Phnomh Penh very much.

    Or at least, I assume so from the way he's writing about Ukraine.

    Is there some weird PB rule that you can only comment about the place you’re in?

    I could bombard you with photos of my free Cambodian meals if you REALLY insist
    I was just thinking, you only write apocalypse porn when you're having a really good time.

    Usually aided by something else.

    Hope you are enjoying your enormous swimming pool, anyway.
    It has been a fabulous trip

    Only now coloured by the fact that, for professional reasons, tomorrow afternoon I have to go and eat a dog
    Live, like those weird fish or cephalopod dishes one sees on Youtube?
    I am told they are roasted whole. Hopefully not alive “a la Chinoise”
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    edited November 2023

    TimS said:

    Halving the IHT rate, removing the automatic CGT step up in business assets on death, and reintroducing retirement relief for ages from 60-70 would be eminently sensible and I expect would bring in more revenue than now.

    All that aside though, looking at the treasury numbers from the Autumn Statement the spending cliff edge Hunt used to pay for his measures (post election of course) is both frightening and unrealistic. That’s the biggest scam in the whole thing- they bagged the revenue benefit of inflation through fiscal drag, but pretend inflation doesn’t exist in public sector spending.

    Labour are walking into a fiscal disaster made by their predecessors and Reeves appears paralysed by this and unwilling to challenge it.

    We need to get beyond taxing people ever more each year so we can run to stand still.

    The State doles out too much welfare, and doesn't invest enough in our future where it really good make a difference.
    No mainstream politician appears to want to discuss the scope of the State, preferring to salami-slice existing budgets rather than looking at rationalising whole departments.

    Such discussions are starting to appear in the US though, as we saw with the removal of Speaker McCarthy a couple of months ago, over his failure to break down the budget rather than simply renew everything.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,717
    edited November 2023
    DavidL said:

    Unpopular said:

    DavidL said:

    I heard Hunt on R4 saying more than once that he had not done the "popular" things but those that were focused on improving growth. I caught a hint that there had perhaps been some tension between himself and Rishi on the point. When your highlight is undoing a serious mistake by your boss who had increased NI it is not hard to see that. Hunt is in a strong position and took advantage of that to produce a package that has been as well received as any for some considerable time.

    My view is that Hunt is essentially running the Government, and I think bringing Cameron back is another sign of that. I see Rishi as a kind of infant Chinese Emperor figure, with Hunt and Suella as his Eunuchs and Courtesans (which is which I'll leave for others to decide).
    That's an interesting idea. We were all looking for a Mandelson figure who could get a grip and it turns out that he is already there.

    It's interesting quite how quiet Braverman has been since her sacking. I suspect that we have not heard the last of her but it has not had the destabilising effect that she and others anticipated.
    That's because they all seem resigned to defeat. A bit of raging will occur for form's sake, but you can tell the fire has gone out.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    edited November 2023
    I’ve also got a bit of Khmer belly. Rumblings below

    These are not ideal circumstances in which to eat an entire roasted dog. I just hope it’s small
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,717
    Leon said:

    I’ve also got a bit of Khmer belly. Rumblings below

    These are not ideal circumstances in which to eat an entire roasted dog. I just hope it’s small

    Even big dogs don't seem to have that much meat on them. Rather stringy creatures, so not very appealing.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,635

    Fishing said:

    I suspect it won't win many votes directly but might shore up existing support. While not many estates will benefit, the large legacies that will often have several significant beneficiaries. I can't find any statistics on this, but if each estate has three or four such on average, and 7% of estates are subject to IHT, that is a very significant block of voters (though some may of course benefit from more than one estate).

    I'd rather spend any spare money on cutting taxes on labour or business profits, but this cut is better than nothing.

    The average detached house price in England is now well over the primary IHT threshold, meaning what most people aspire to would be technically liable, and isn't far off even the higher level with the nil-rate band:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-house-price-index-for-january-2023

    People get frustrated that their family homes are taxed out whilst the super-rich can use shell companies and financial advisors to pay so little.
    Most houses are inherited with two bites at IHT allowance, and at the RNRB. So well below the allowance.

  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,886
    Leon said:

    I’ve also got a bit of Khmer belly. Rumblings below

    These are not ideal circumstances in which to eat an entire roasted dog. I just hope it’s small

    The XS Bully (Slim fit)
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,983
    The IHT wheeze will help a bit but only a bit. This government is so clapped out and detested that any gratitude and concomitant electoral benefit accruing therefrom will be limited. Only the truly committed Azure Azovs are going to vote for another five years of whatever the fuck this is.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    edited November 2023
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    I’ve also got a bit of Khmer belly. Rumblings below

    These are not ideal circumstances in which to eat an entire roasted dog. I just hope it’s small

    Even big dogs don't seem to have that much meat on them. Rather stringy creatures, so not very appealing.
    Carnivore meat generally has quite strong flavour, I believe.

    In France the surprise publishing sensation is a man's biography of his pooch.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/24/bookseller-france-dog-story-life-love-grief-word-of-mouth-bestseller
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    TimS said:

    Halving the IHT rate, removing the automatic CGT step up in business assets on death, and reintroducing retirement relief for ages from 60-70 would be eminently sensible and I expect would bring in more revenue than now.

    All that aside though, looking at the treasury numbers from the Autumn Statement the spending cliff edge Hunt used to pay for his measures (post election of course) is both frightening and unrealistic. That’s the biggest scam in the whole thing- they bagged the revenue benefit of inflation through fiscal drag, but pretend inflation doesn’t exist in public sector spending.

    Labour are walking into a fiscal disaster made by their predecessors and Reeves appears paralysed by this and unwilling to challenge it.

    Starmer is on the front of The Times today ordering Reeves to further scale back the £28 billion "green propserity fund". There is no money left...

    Only question is whether it is months or weeks into Starmer's term as PM before the question gets asked: "What is Labour for?"

    There is no scope for materially different ways of governing Britain without requiring the State to take chunks of wealth away from people. Labour can't do that, certainly not in it's Manifesto - ask Theresa May how many dozen prospective MPs you lose by talking about the unacceptable.

    We are left with two options: Labour is going to do nothing very different to 13 yers of Tory rule, other than shrug its shoulders and say "What else can we do?". Or it is lying now, knowing it is going to be the very radical government it feels it will need to be - but can never admit.






  • Options
    Foxy said:

    @TSE

    I have mailed you a possibly interesting threader.

    Enjoy the match, I am a little nervous of Leicesters blip in form, Watford seem good value for the away win at 6.2.

    Received thank you and replied.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,359
    edited November 2023
    Unpopular said:

    DavidL said:

    I heard Hunt on R4 saying more than once that he had not done the "popular" things but those that were focused on improving growth. I caught a hint that there had perhaps been some tension between himself and Rishi on the point. When your highlight is undoing a serious mistake by your boss who had increased NI it is not hard to see that. Hunt is in a strong position and took advantage of that to produce a package that has been as well received as any for some considerable time.

    My view is that Hunt is essentially running the Government, and I think bringing Cameron back is another sign of that. I see Rishi as a kind of infant Chinese Emperor figure, with Hunt and Suella as his Eunuchs and Courtesans (which is which I'll leave for others to decide).
    I don't think that's true, but we are always being reminded of the odd power of the Treasury. I am reminded of the account of Redwood who tried to convince Thatcher that Lawson (I think it was Lawson) was ignoring her express wishes, and tracking the DM. She couldn't believe it but came to. Then you have Brown and Blair. Then you have Bojo in his final days taking on Zahawi and saying 'Now we're finally going for economic growth' - clearly Sunak had exercised a lot of control from the Treasury for good or ill. There should be a straightforward chain of command, as supposedly the PM hires and fires the COE. But there isn't. And neither Sunak (nor Truss of her own will) hired Hunt.
  • Options
    Millions of DAB radio listeners to be locked out of stations including Classic FM
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/dab-radio-switch-signal-classic-fm/ (£££)

    Stations are moving from DAB to DAB+ so put a new wireless on your Christmas list.
  • Options
    IcarusIcarus Posts: 898
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    I’ve also got a bit of Khmer belly. Rumblings below

    These are not ideal circumstances in which to eat an entire roasted dog. I just hope it’s small

    Even big dogs don't seem to have that much meat on them. Rather stringy creatures, so not very appealing.
    A friend is looking for a new dog. Don't ask me why - they must be mad and doesn't help with glogal warming. Have been offered dogs "rescued from the China dog meat trade" Are we really importing dogs from the far east?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937

    Millions of DAB radio listeners to be locked out of stations including Classic FM
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/dab-radio-switch-signal-classic-fm/ (£££)

    Stations are moving from DAB to DAB+ so put a new wireless on your Christmas list.

    I was working on DAB+ tech over fifteen years ago. I'm slightly surprised it's taken this long to swap over.
  • Options

    TimS said:

    Halving the IHT rate, removing the automatic CGT step up in business assets on death, and reintroducing retirement relief for ages from 60-70 would be eminently sensible and I expect would bring in more revenue than now.

    All that aside though, looking at the treasury numbers from the Autumn Statement the spending cliff edge Hunt used to pay for his measures (post election of course) is both frightening and unrealistic. That’s the biggest scam in the whole thing- they bagged the revenue benefit of inflation through fiscal drag, but pretend inflation doesn’t exist in public sector spending.

    Labour are walking into a fiscal disaster made by their predecessors and Reeves appears paralysed by this and unwilling to challenge it.

    Starmer is on the front of The Times today ordering Reeves to further scale back the £28 billion "green propserity fund". There is no money left...

    Only question is whether it is months or weeks into Starmer's term as PM before the question gets asked: "What is Labour for?"

    There is no scope for materially different ways of governing Britain without requiring the State to take chunks of wealth away from people. Labour can't do that, certainly not in it's Manifesto - ask Theresa May how many dozen prospective MPs you lose by talking about the unacceptable.

    We are left with two options: Labour is going to do nothing very different to 13 yers of Tory rule, other than shrug its shoulders and say "What else can we do?". Or it is lying now, knowing it is going to be the very radical government it feels it will need to be - but can never admit.

    The problem being that most of Labour's voting base thinks there's been 'austerity' and expects the money taps to be turned on.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    The Guardian is annoyed that Britain is actually exploiting one of its post Brexit freedoms. The freedom to exclude undesirable people from the EU

    “Fivefold rise in number of EU citizens refused entry to UK since Brexit
    Home Office data reveals impact of end of free movement and raises questions over Border Force hostility”

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/25/fivefold-rise-number-eu-citizens-refused-entry-uk-since-brexit


    Of course it chooses a couple of sympathetic sob stories. A nice Spanish girl stuck in red tape

    Buried deep in the report is the fact by far the largest number of excluded citizens are from Romania
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    Icarus said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    I’ve also got a bit of Khmer belly. Rumblings below

    These are not ideal circumstances in which to eat an entire roasted dog. I just hope it’s small

    Even big dogs don't seem to have that much meat on them. Rather stringy creatures, so not very appealing.
    A friend is looking for a new dog. Don't ask me why - they must be mad and doesn't help with glogal warming. Have been offered dogs "rescued from the China dog meat trade" Are we really importing dogs from the far east?
    I really really doubt it. From everything I’ve read most of these “rescue dogs” are forcibly bred in horrible puppy farms and then labelled as “rescue hounds”

    Who on earth would ship a mangy dog from Guandong? Tell your friend to think twice
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,987

    Inheritance tax is an aspiration thing. People loathe it even if they will never pay it as it stinks of unfairness....increasing Inheritance tax allowance to 1 million per person is the first step.
    Noone has to pay IHT if they set up a trust.

    Though you have to live seven years after the gift to the trust to be free of IHT.
  • Options
    Icarus said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    I’ve also got a bit of Khmer belly. Rumblings below

    These are not ideal circumstances in which to eat an entire roasted dog. I just hope it’s small

    Even big dogs don't seem to have that much meat on them. Rather stringy creatures, so not very appealing.
    A friend is looking for a new dog. Don't ask me why - they must be mad and doesn't help with glogal warming. Have been offered dogs "rescued from the China dog meat trade" Are we really importing dogs from the far east?
    Barking up the Wong tree?
  • Options

    TimS said:

    Halving the IHT rate, removing the automatic CGT step up in business assets on death, and reintroducing retirement relief for ages from 60-70 would be eminently sensible and I expect would bring in more revenue than now.

    All that aside though, looking at the treasury numbers from the Autumn Statement the spending cliff edge Hunt used to pay for his measures (post election of course) is both frightening and unrealistic. That’s the biggest scam in the whole thing- they bagged the revenue benefit of inflation through fiscal drag, but pretend inflation doesn’t exist in public sector spending.

    Labour are walking into a fiscal disaster made by their predecessors and Reeves appears paralysed by this and unwilling to challenge it.

    Starmer is on the front of The Times today ordering Reeves to further scale back the £28 billion "green propserity fund". There is no money left...

    Only question is whether it is months or weeks into Starmer's term as PM before the question gets asked: "What is Labour for?"

    There is no scope for materially different ways of governing Britain without requiring the State to take chunks of wealth away from people. Labour can't do that, certainly not in it's Manifesto - ask Theresa May how many dozen prospective MPs you lose by talking about the unacceptable.

    We are left with two options: Labour is going to do nothing very different to 13 yers of Tory rule, other than shrug its shoulders and say "What else can we do?". Or it is lying now, knowing it is going to be the very radical government it feels it will need to be - but can never admit.

    The problem being that most of Labour's voting base thinks there's been 'austerity' and expects the money taps to be turned on.
    And most of the Conservative voting base think that taxes are unacceptably high and expect tax cuts upon tax cuts.

    We're in La La Land fiscally, but it's in nobody's interest to be the first to say it out loud.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    edited November 2023

    Icarus said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    I’ve also got a bit of Khmer belly. Rumblings below

    These are not ideal circumstances in which to eat an entire roasted dog. I just hope it’s small

    Even big dogs don't seem to have that much meat on them. Rather stringy creatures, so not very appealing.
    A friend is looking for a new dog. Don't ask me why - they must be mad and doesn't help with glogal warming. Have been offered dogs "rescued from the China dog meat trade" Are we really importing dogs from the far east?
    Barking up the Wong tree?
    There is an appalling video doing the TwiX rounds of some poor dog being roasted alive - for flavour purposes - in China

    I don’t like pet dogs, in principle. Dogs in general kinda bore me - I love wild animals not domestic toys. I’m not overly sentimental about animals in toto (tho killing wildlife can set me off)

    But Jesus Christ. This video. I obvs won’t link - it will make you rage with fury. The pure unthinking cruelty
  • Options
    Leon said:

    Icarus said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    I’ve also got a bit of Khmer belly. Rumblings below

    These are not ideal circumstances in which to eat an entire roasted dog. I just hope it’s small

    Even big dogs don't seem to have that much meat on them. Rather stringy creatures, so not very appealing.
    A friend is looking for a new dog. Don't ask me why - they must be mad and doesn't help with glogal warming. Have been offered dogs "rescued from the China dog meat trade" Are we really importing dogs from the far east?
    Barking up the Wong tree?
    There is an appalling video doing the TwiX rounds of some poor dog being roasted alive - for flavour purposes - in China

    I don’t like pet dogs, in principle. Dogs in general kinda bore me - I love wild animals not domestic toys. I’m not overly sentimental about animals in toto (tho killing wildlife can set me off)

    But Jesus Christ. This video. I obvs won’t link - it will make you rage with fury. The pure unthinking cruelty
    It's OK, I became radicalised enough to turn veggie way back in 1991.
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,141
    There will be no action on IHT this or next financial year. If Hunt, say, abolishes it, then it is a fait accompli and of no further appeal to those voters who dislike it. So to keep them in the fold he has to *promise* to abolish it in the future. That is not much of a hostage to fortune as it only raises 0.8% of govt. revenue. It is therefore only totemic. But SKS will feel obliged to commit to keeping or reinstating it. Thus it becomes a wedge issue.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    Icarus said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    I’ve also got a bit of Khmer belly. Rumblings below

    These are not ideal circumstances in which to eat an entire roasted dog. I just hope it’s small

    Even big dogs don't seem to have that much meat on them. Rather stringy creatures, so not very appealing.
    A friend is looking for a new dog. Don't ask me why - they must be mad and doesn't help with glogal warming. Have been offered dogs "rescued from the China dog meat trade" Are we really importing dogs from the far east?

    TimS said:

    Halving the IHT rate, removing the automatic CGT step up in business assets on death, and reintroducing retirement relief for ages from 60-70 would be eminently sensible and I expect would bring in more revenue than now.

    All that aside though, looking at the treasury numbers from the Autumn Statement the spending cliff edge Hunt used to pay for his measures (post election of course) is both frightening and unrealistic. That’s the biggest scam in the whole thing- they bagged the revenue benefit of inflation through fiscal drag, but pretend inflation doesn’t exist in public sector spending.

    Labour are walking into a fiscal disaster made by their predecessors and Reeves appears paralysed by this and unwilling to challenge it.

    Starmer is on the front of The Times today ordering Reeves to further scale back the £28 billion "green propserity fund". There is no money left...

    Only question is whether it is months or weeks into Starmer's term as PM before the question gets asked: "What is Labour for?"

    There is no scope for materially different ways of governing Britain without requiring the State to take chunks of wealth away from people. Labour can't do that, certainly not in it's Manifesto - ask Theresa May how many dozen prospective MPs you lose by talking about the unacceptable.

    We are left with two options: Labour is going to do nothing very different to 13 yers of Tory rule, other than shrug its shoulders and say "What else can we do?". Or it is lying now, knowing it is going to be the very radical government it feels it will need to be - but can never admit.

    I suspect that the economic cycle is going to turn at a time that suits Labour, but there is no denying the immediate financial challenges that Reeves will most likely inherit.

    Voters wanting increased spending on services are not easily going to be won back by the Tories who left them in such a parlous state.

    There was frustration too in Blairs first term on this, but the Tories didn't benefit.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    edited November 2023

    On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.

    My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.

    Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.

    You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left

    We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,119
    Dura_Ace said:

    The IHT wheeze will help a bit but only a bit. This government is so clapped out and detested that any gratitude and concomitant electoral benefit accruing therefrom will be limited. Only the truly committed Azure Azovs are going to vote for another five years of whatever the fuck this is.

    Spot on there. It’s damage limitation from here on in.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,124

    TimS said:

    Halving the IHT rate, removing the automatic CGT step up in business assets on death, and reintroducing retirement relief for ages from 60-70 would be eminently sensible and I expect would bring in more revenue than now.

    All that aside though, looking at the treasury numbers from the Autumn Statement the spending cliff edge Hunt used to pay for his measures (post election of course) is both frightening and unrealistic. That’s the biggest scam in the whole thing- they bagged the revenue benefit of inflation through fiscal drag, but pretend inflation doesn’t exist in public sector spending.

    Labour are walking into a fiscal disaster made by their predecessors and Reeves appears paralysed by this and unwilling to challenge it.

    Starmer is on the front of The Times today ordering Reeves to further scale back the £28 billion "green propserity fund". There is no money left...

    Only question is whether it is months or weeks into Starmer's term as PM before the question gets asked: "What is Labour for?"

    There is no scope for materially different ways of governing Britain without requiring the State to take chunks of wealth away from people. Labour can't do that, certainly not in it's Manifesto - ask Theresa May how many dozen prospective MPs you lose by talking about the unacceptable.

    We are left with two options: Labour is going to do nothing very different to 13 yers of Tory rule, other than shrug its shoulders and say "What else can we do?". Or it is lying now, knowing it is going to be the very radical government it feels it will need to be - but can never admit.

    The problem being that most of Labour's voting base thinks there's been 'austerity' and expects the money taps to be turned on.
    And most of the Conservative voting base think that taxes are unacceptably high and expect tax cuts upon tax cuts.

    We're in La La Land fiscally, but it's in nobody's interest to be the first to say it out loud.
    Labour are being disingenuous if they do not. They might lose 1992 style, but the reality of low taxes mean poor services and this needs to be spelled out by Labour.

    Conservative tax policy is salting the earth for the next government. It's almost worth re electing the Tories in coalition with the DUP on a majority of 2 , so they have to deal with the fallout themselves.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,800
    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I intend avoiding inheritance tax.

    Mainly by giving it away to plant nurseries.

    My children will inherit the earth.

    Plant nurseries? Is that where they train Civil Servants?
    I've met plants with more brains than many in government.

    Were it not for me travelling today you'd be getting an earful about the entirely unsurprising discovery that Business Ministers have been bare-faced lying to Parliamentary Select Committees about Post Office bonus schemes. Maybe later.
    I’d say the average plant has more brains than the average politician.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,987
    Leon said:

    I’ve also got a bit of Khmer belly. Rumblings below

    These are not ideal circumstances in which to eat an entire roasted dog. I just hope it’s small

    ... and hot?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    Barnesian said:

    Leon said:

    I’ve also got a bit of Khmer belly. Rumblings below

    These are not ideal circumstances in which to eat an entire roasted dog. I just hope it’s small

    ... and hot?
    Yes, after I’ve dipped it in chili

    I am told it is “gamey”
  • Options
    Leon said:

    On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.

    My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.

    Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.

    You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left

    We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
    I look at my (lovely) children and the shape of their family tree (just enough childless aunts and uncles), and they are going to benefit insanely from the current setup.

    And whilst I am confident that, when the time comes, they will use their good fortune wisely and well. But it isn't right.

    If we want to pass houses down the generations, they need to be abundant and cheap, so everyone who wants one has one. Alternatively, they ought to be taxed. Because the headstart from having a valuable house for life for free just isn't on
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,800
    ydoethur said:

    It was interesting that in the 2010 debates the 'worm' following the immediate approval/disapproval reaction of audiences when Cameron was talking in the dates was highest when he was talking about inheritance tax.

    However, it didn't win him a majority.

    If I'm honest I would have said what would be considerably more useful certainly in the medium term than inheritance tax cuts is sorting out the positively labyrinthine system of probate. It's better than it was but it's still a mess and needs to be knocked down and started again from scratch.

    But - there aren't many headlines in that.

    My view is that the Probate Service is much worse than five years ago. Back then, you got Grants in 3-6 weeks, typically. Now, it’s more like 12-16 weeks.

    This follows the replacement of paper applications with online ones. This was meant to speed up the process.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    Leon said:

    Icarus said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    I’ve also got a bit of Khmer belly. Rumblings below

    These are not ideal circumstances in which to eat an entire roasted dog. I just hope it’s small

    Even big dogs don't seem to have that much meat on them. Rather stringy creatures, so not very appealing.
    A friend is looking for a new dog. Don't ask me why - they must be mad and doesn't help with glogal warming. Have been offered dogs "rescued from the China dog meat trade" Are we really importing dogs from the far east?
    Barking up the Wong tree?
    There is an appalling video doing the TwiX rounds of some poor dog being roasted alive - for flavour purposes - in China

    I don’t like pet dogs, in principle. Dogs in general kinda bore me - I love wild animals not domestic toys. I’m not overly sentimental about animals in toto (tho killing wildlife can set me off)

    But Jesus Christ. This video. I obvs won’t link - it will make you rage with fury. The pure unthinking cruelty
    I remember being in China in 1991 and seeing small animals alive in cages outside gourmet restaurants, a bit like you might see a tank of live lobsters at a seafood restaurant. Prospective customers would poke them with a stick for entertainment and also to see how lively they were.

    Apparently the gourmets like the animal to be both fresh and terrified as the hormonal changes of pain and fear add to the flavour.

    Not my cup of tea at all.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,554

    TimS said:

    Halving the IHT rate, removing the automatic CGT step up in business assets on death, and reintroducing retirement relief for ages from 60-70 would be eminently sensible and I expect would bring in more revenue than now.

    All that aside though, looking at the treasury numbers from the Autumn Statement the spending cliff edge Hunt used to pay for his measures (post election of course) is both frightening and unrealistic. That’s the biggest scam in the whole thing- they bagged the revenue benefit of inflation through fiscal drag, but pretend inflation doesn’t exist in public sector spending.

    Labour are walking into a fiscal disaster made by their predecessors and Reeves appears paralysed by this and unwilling to challenge it.

    Starmer is on the front of The Times today ordering Reeves to further scale back the £28 billion "green propserity fund". There is no money left...

    Only question is whether it is months or weeks into Starmer's term as PM before the question gets asked: "What is Labour for?"

    There is no scope for materially different ways of governing Britain without requiring the State to take chunks of wealth away from people. Labour can't do that, certainly not in it's Manifesto - ask Theresa May how many dozen prospective MPs you lose by talking about the unacceptable.

    We are left with two options: Labour is going to do nothing very different to 13 yers of Tory rule, other than shrug its shoulders and say "What else can we do?". Or it is lying now, knowing it is going to be the very radical government it feels it will need to be - but can never admit.

    The problem being that most of Labour's voting base thinks there's been 'austerity' and expects the money taps to be turned on.
    There has, and I don’t think it’s just Labours voting base that sees this. We have an ever growing inactive population which is also ever more unhealthy and in need of social care, and the people left in the working age population have to foot ever more of the bill to support them. Meanwhile public services crumble because spending has to run fast just to stand still.

    Tax take as a percentage of GDP is actually still somewhat below most European peers, and well below the few countries left with high productivity and good public infrastructure.

    So: whack up VAT to 25% and put it on everything, no more of these silly exemptions. Like the Danes do. Bring employer social security up to 20% - a “tax on jobs”? Our problem is not unemployment, it’s productivity. Encourage them to spend more on equipment and technology rather than low paid jobs. Cut employee NI further. Cut central government CT to 15% and allow regions to choose whether to add up to 10% locally collected tax on top. Turn full expensing into a qualifying refundable tax credit with 20% super deduction. And borrow to invest in productive infrastructure because you know that £100 postponed now becomes £200 when you get round to it later.

    And offer everyone of pension age a £1,000 lump sum to emigrate somewhere warm.

    Do something.
  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I intend avoiding inheritance tax.

    Mainly by giving it away to plant nurseries.

    My children will inherit the earth.

    Plant nurseries? Is that where they train Civil Servants?
    I've met plants with more brains than many in government.
    "There are bits of lemon floating down the Thames that would make better regents than you!" :lol:
This discussion has been closed.