On social care, it will likely be one of the sectors hardest hit by the NI and minimum wages hikes. I'm guessing the small increase in funding in the budget just about covers this ?
If the budget unwravels in the media, it could well be when it dawns on commentators that a big slice of the extra funding for health, schools, councils and the rest will be eaten up by the government's own employers' NI increase. Indeed by my reckoning the extra NI for a typical local council's workforce will cost more than the 1.5% real increase in funding that Reeves threw them in yesterday's speech, assuming a pay rise in April that is near CPI.
I think Labour will have to implement pay freezes across big chunks of the public sector fir a few years to make the NI tax figures work out. I don't think they have the fortitude to see off the unions on it though.
I’d expect see further tax rises, to cover the extra costs imposed upon public sector pay budgets.
(1) They won't get £25bn (net) from raising employers NI to 15% (2) They won't get anything like £9bn from putting VAT and business rates on private schools, which is just a fantasy (3) All the money they put into the NHS will be soaked up by higher wages and prices and headcount, with no real shift in output (4) The economy in general will grow more slowly; the £21bn planned for CCUS is pissing money up the wall - and a huge missed opportunity for UK Plc (5) You can forget the income tax thresholds becoming unfrozen in 2028
I expect the UK to be in an even worse position by 2028-29 than if Sunak/Hunt had stayed in office, and I say that as someone who was never impressed by their aversion to capital investment.
They aren't getting the £25bn from the increase in NI to 15% they are getting it from the reduction in the starting point to £5000 from £9100 - that's £610 tax on anyone employing someone working more than 8 hours a week..
A country bumpkin writes: This article contains a maximal saturation of great sounding terms that don't mean anything to us, even though we understand the effects of IHT changes on muck spreading farmers.
Glossary required.
Bots and people with deep pockets have been caught manipulating Polymarket into a pro Trump position.
The question is have their tentacles of doom spread to Betfair?
Wouldn't that simple happen by default due to market arbitration?
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
The Inheritance Tax changes to farming were totally predicted aqnd the most stupid. They show a lack of any political nouse and won't produce any money. Even more so for small businesses.
However, it is now easy for Reform to promise to end IHT on estates of under £15M, and they will do that. Presumably the Conservatives will do the same. The question is will the LDs, probably not. Thus they will lose all the seats they gained and some more besides.
"She had to do something". Well, doing nothing would have been better than this, much better. So NO, she didn't have to do anything.
It's interesting that right wing views on this have changed in the last few years. In the 90s and 00s it was a common position among Thatcherite think tanks and - given the CAP - Eurosceptics that the UK should follow the example of New Zealand and completely open up farming to the free market: that there were far too many family farms that were too small to be competitive, and instead by forcing them to sell up and rationalise we could have a truly productive agricultural sector that would export to the world. Only the CAP was holding us back.
It's a sign of how times have changed. Many of those erstwhile free marketeers are now in favour of a form of autarky - see Redwood's twitter feed - and are returning to their older conservative roots of supporting the traditional rural economy. Not just on topics like IHT but more generally. With the one exception of wanting to do free trade deals with agri exporters like Australia and the US.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
No more IHT.
You'll still get the cries of "double taxation". But there is a lot of logic in simply taxing people when they get money, regardless of where it comes from.
Because it is. Easy enough to get around - buy items and pass them on.
In the case of farms, I think you'll see a lot more lifetime transfers. The farmhouse itself, and garden, can be transferred, without triggering a charge to CGT.
Not the headline/push notification Starmer/Reeves would have wanted.
That's already been the case in my firm.
Expected pay rises of 2% have been cancelled.
How much did all your take home pay amounts benefit from the cuts in Employee NI which have been maintained?
(Serious Q)
Well, we know that was cut by a cumulative total of 4% beneath the upper threshold but one has to bear in mind that this didn't offset even half of the fiscal drag tax increases since 2020.
I've noticed, though not here, that there's a lot of delusional people who think that the two NI will be paid for by businesses who will take it out of their profit margins. I guess these will be the same people that blame their employers when wages are frozen for three years to recover the losses.
I think that the government are banking on getting the credit for the spending increases, while businesses get the blame for wage freezes.
On social care, it will likely be one of the sectors hardest hit by the NI and minimum wages hikes. I'm guessing the small increase in funding in the budget just about covers this ?
If the budget unwravels in the media, it could well be when it dawns on commentators that a big slice of the extra funding for health, schools, councils and the rest will be eaten up by the government's own employers' NI increase. Indeed by my reckoning the extra NI for a typical local council's workforce will cost more than the 1.5% real increase in funding that Reeves threw them in yesterday's speech, assuming a pay rise in April that is near CPI.
I think Labour will have to implement pay freezes across big chunks of the public sector fir a few years to make the NI tax figures work out. I don't think they have the fortitude to see off the unions on it though.
I’d expect see further tax rises, to cover the extra costs imposed upon public sector pay budgets.
(1) They won't get £25bn (net) from raising employers NI to 15% (2) They won't get anything like £9bn from putting VAT and business rates on private schools, which is just a fantasy (3) All the money they put into the NHS will be soaked up by higher wages and prices and headcount, with no real shift in output (4) The economy in general will grow more slowly; the £21bn planned for CCUS is pissing money up the wall - and a huge missed opportunity for UK Plc (5) You can forget the income tax thresholds becoming unfrozen in 2028
I expect the UK to be in an even worse position by 2028-29 than if Sunak/Hunt had stayed in office, and I say that as someone who was never impressed by their aversion to capital investment.
They aren't getting the £25bn from the increase in NI to 15% they are getting it from the reduction in the starting point to £5000 from £9100 - that's £610 tax on anyone employing someone working more than 8 hours a week..
Both come into play but the forecast is very optimistic.
Fundamentally, our highly westernised individualistic model means we expect people who need help and those who need care to be fully independent or cared for by paid others without any recourse to extended families or communities who'd do it essentially for free with a bit of aid and help.
This is not normal, throughout human history or in the rest of the world, where extended families care for their elderly parents and those with disabilities.
That doesn't bankrupt nations. And psychologically it's better for them too.
It may not be normal historically or internationally but it is a modern British value I applaud and one which makes me feel patriotic. Different strokes for different folks.
It doesn't, in my case. I think it's actually rather selfish and cruel.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
Not the headline/push notification Starmer/Reeves would have wanted.
That's already been the case in my firm.
Expected pay rises of 2% have been cancelled.
How much did all your take home pay amounts benefit from the cuts in Employee NI which have been maintained?
(Serious Q)
Well, we know that was cut by a cumulative total of 4% beneath the upper threshold but one has to bear in mind that this didn't offset even half of the fiscal drag tax increases since 2020.
Which is why fiscal drag is the best possible tax increase for the Chancellor. Because your payslip never shows it, your pay never actually goes down in money terms.
Battery manufacturing capacity is a national security essential.
Biggest US drone maker @SkydioHQ which supplies Ukraine with drones for intelligence gathering) faces supply chain crisis after China bans company from selling batteries to the group. https://x.com/Dimi/status/1851810020855296369
Not the headline/push notification Starmer/Reeves would have wanted.
Two questions there.
1. Titanic, on your phone? 2. 8am and your battery is nearly dead. Did you stay ‘out’ last night?
1) Yes, my phone is called Titanic, back in 2010 when my phone synced with my car it used to say ‘phone syncing’, so I renamed my phone Titanic so whenever it synced it would say ‘Titanic syncing’ which is amused me.
2) My new iPhone 16 Pro Max has a phenomenal battery, I can go two whole days on a full charge and I hate charging overnight so it was 18% last night when I went to bed.
I've noticed, though not here, that there's a lot of delusional people who think that the two NI will be paid for by businesses who will take it out of their profit margins. I guess these will be the same people that blame their employers when wages are frozen for three years to recover the losses.
I think that the government are banking on getting the credit for the spending increases, while businesses get the blame for wage freezes.
We'll see whether that works.
Logically given we've had cuts to employee NI of 4% over the 2 last Hunt budgets, neither of which Reeves has reversed, and now a rise of 1.2% in employer NI, you would expect the net impact on take home pay to be positive.
I'm not sure how sensible it was for Reeves to promise not to reverse the last NI cut, which was clearly unaffordable and ate massively into fiscal headroom, but I suppose she had to do that for electoral purposes.
The long term solution - moving to a land value tax - remains out of sight for the foreseeable future, until we get a Lib Dem majority government.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
Yesterday went some way towards that. 20% IHT on business and agricultural property above the threshold.
Our regime is out of step with other developed European countries, which generally have broader bases and lower rates.
Agricultural property used to be exempt, so yesterday’s changes are simply a tax rise that sends even more money to the lawyers and accountants.
Isn't the concern that wealthy non-farming people have been buying farmland to evade IHT when they die?
Not the headline/push notification Starmer/Reeves would have wanted.
Two questions there.
1. Titanic, on your phone? 2. 8am and your battery is nearly dead. Did you stay ‘out’ last night?
1) Yes, my phone is called Titanic, back in 2010 when my phone synced with my car it used to say ‘phone syncing’, so I renamed my phone Titanic so whenever it synced it would say ‘Titanic syncing’ which is amused me.
2) My new iPhone 16 Pro Max has a phenomenal battery, I can go two whole days on a full charge and I hate charging overnight so it was 18% last night when I went to bed.
On social care, it will likely be one of the sectors hardest hit by the NI and minimum wages hikes. I'm guessing the small increase in funding in the budget just about covers this ?
If the budget unwravels in the media, it could well be when it dawns on commentators that a big slice of the extra funding for health, schools, councils and the rest will be eaten up by the government's own employers' NI increase. Indeed by my reckoning the extra NI for a typical local council's workforce will cost more than the 1.5% real increase in funding that Reeves threw them in yesterday's speech, assuming a pay rise in April that is near CPI.
I think Labour will have to implement pay freezes across big chunks of the public sector fir a few years to make the NI tax figures work out. I don't think they have the fortitude to see off the unions on it though.
I’d expect see further tax rises, to cover the extra costs imposed upon public sector pay budgets.
(1) They won't get £25bn (net) from raising employers NI to 15% (2) They won't get anything like £9bn from putting VAT and business rates on private schools, which is just a fantasy (3) All the money they put into the NHS will be soaked up by higher wages and prices and headcount, with no real shift in output (4) The economy in general will grow more slowly; the £21bn planned for CCUS is pissing money up the wall - and a huge missed opportunity for UK Plc (5) You can forget the income tax thresholds becoming unfrozen in 2028
I expect the UK to be in an even worse position by 2028-29 than if Sunak/Hunt had stayed in office, and I say that as someone who was never impressed by their aversion to capital investment.
Nevertheless the budget the Tories would have given us, in the same circumstances, would have been absolute **** and very damaging, if in different ways.
Battery manufacturing capacity is a national security essential.
Biggest US drone maker @SkydioHQ which supplies Ukraine with drones for intelligence gathering) faces supply chain crisis after China bans company from selling batteries to the group. https://x.com/Dimi/status/1851810020855296369
Another example of how we are heading, not to a multipolar, but to a bipolar world again.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
Yesterday went some way towards that. 20% IHT on business and agricultural property above the threshold.
Our regime is out of step with other developed European countries, which generally have broader bases and lower rates.
Agricultural property used to be exempt, so yesterday’s changes are simply a tax rise that sends even more money to the lawyers and accountants.
Isn't the concern that wealthy non-farming people have been buying farmland to evade IHT when they die?
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
No more IHT.
You'll still get the cries of "double taxation". But there is a lot of logic in simply taxing people when they get money, regardless of where it comes from.
VAT is double taxation. So is Council Tax. Yet you only get the "double taxation" complaint about IHT. Odd.
Not the headline/push notification Starmer/Reeves would have wanted.
Two questions there.
1. Titanic, on your phone? 2. 8am and your battery is nearly dead. Did you stay ‘out’ last night?
1) Yes, my phone is called Titanic, back in 2010 when my phone synced with my car it used to say ‘phone syncing’, so I renamed my phone Titanic so whenever it synced it would say ‘Titanic syncing’ which is amused me.
2) My new iPhone 16 Pro Max has a phenomenal battery, I can go two whole days on a full charge and I hate charging overnight so it was 18% last night when I went to bed.
Not the headline/push notification Starmer/Reeves would have wanted.
Two questions there.
1. Titanic, on your phone? 2. 8am and your battery is nearly dead. Did you stay ‘out’ last night?
1) Yes, my phone is called Titanic, back in 2010 when my phone synced with my car it used to say ‘phone syncing’, so I renamed my phone Titanic so whenever it synced it would say ‘Titanic syncing’ which is amused me.
2) My new iPhone 16 Pro Max has a phenomenal battery, I can go two whole days on a full charge and I hate charging overnight so it was 18% last night when I went to bed.
Why ?
I like to have my phone off overnight these days.
When it is on I get distracted.
Just admit it, you were "out" on a school night weren't you? 👀
On social care, it will likely be one of the sectors hardest hit by the NI and minimum wages hikes. I'm guessing the small increase in funding in the budget just about covers this ?
If the budget unwravels in the media, it could well be when it dawns on commentators that a big slice of the extra funding for health, schools, councils and the rest will be eaten up by the government's own employers' NI increase. Indeed by my reckoning the extra NI for a typical local council's workforce will cost more than the 1.5% real increase in funding that Reeves threw them in yesterday's speech, assuming a pay rise in April that is near CPI.
I think Labour will have to implement pay freezes across big chunks of the public sector fir a few years to make the NI tax figures work out. I don't think they have the fortitude to see off the unions on it though.
I’d expect see further tax rises, to cover the extra costs imposed upon public sector pay budgets.
(2) They won't get anything like £9bn from putting VAT and business rates on private schools, which is just a fantasy
Seriously, where does this £9bn number come from, Casino? It is a fantasy, because it's not what Reeves said.
The Budget says £1.8bn from Private School VAT/ Business Rate changes. The £9bn is for that AND tax avoidance measures.
Is this the Telegraph or another paper lying or deliberately misdirecting again?
Cite from the Budget Docs: 2.62 The government is committed to ensuring that every child has access to high-quality education. To secure additional funding to help deliver commitments relating to education and young people, the government will introduce 20% VAT on education and boarding services provided for a charge by private schools from 1 January 2025. The government will also remove business rates charitable rate relief from private schools in England from April 2025.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
No more IHT.
Would you also tax gifts?
I'd ban them for adults. Who really wants socks and toileteries from their family and friends. And who wants to spend their time coming up with fresh ideas.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
No more IHT.
What's your limit on gifts? Or does everyone have to fill in a tax return every year? Ornaybe every time they get a credit in their bank account?
Not the headline/push notification Starmer/Reeves would have wanted.
Two questions there.
1. Titanic, on your phone? 2. 8am and your battery is nearly dead. Did you stay ‘out’ last night?
1) Yes, my phone is called Titanic, back in 2010 when my phone synced with my car it used to say ‘phone syncing’, so I renamed my phone Titanic so whenever it synced it would say ‘Titanic syncing’ which is amused me.
2) My new iPhone 16 Pro Max has a phenomenal battery, I can go two whole days on a full charge and I hate charging overnight so it was 18% last night when I went to bed.
On social care, it will likely be one of the sectors hardest hit by the NI and minimum wages hikes. I'm guessing the small increase in funding in the budget just about covers this ?
If the budget unwravels in the media, it could well be when it dawns on commentators that a big slice of the extra funding for health, schools, councils and the rest will be eaten up by the government's own employers' NI increase. Indeed by my reckoning the extra NI for a typical local council's workforce will cost more than the 1.5% real increase in funding that Reeves threw them in yesterday's speech, assuming a pay rise in April that is near CPI.
I think Labour will have to implement pay freezes across big chunks of the public sector fir a few years to make the NI tax figures work out. I don't think they have the fortitude to see off the unions on it though.
I’d expect see further tax rises, to cover the extra costs imposed upon public sector pay budgets.
(1) They won't get £25bn (net) from raising employers NI to 15% (2) They won't get anything like £9bn from putting VAT and business rates on private schools, which is just a fantasy (3) All the money they put into the NHS will be soaked up by higher wages and prices and headcount, with no real shift in output (4) The economy in general will grow more slowly; the £21bn planned for CCUS is pissing money up the wall - and a huge missed opportunity for UK Plc (5) You can forget the income tax thresholds becoming unfrozen in 2028
I expect the UK to be in an even worse position by 2028-29 than if Sunak/Hunt had stayed in office, and I say that as someone who was never impressed by their aversion to capital investment.
Nevertheless the budget the Tories would have given us, in the same circumstances, would have been absolute **** and very damaging, if in different ways.
Lol. Got it. It wasn't a Tory budget so this one was better. Such is the level of thinking some go in on.
I want someone to end the triple lock, put boundaries on what the NHS gives and introduce social insurance for covering other care and risk, and cut back on PIP benefit culture.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
No more IHT.
You'll still get the cries of "double taxation". But there is a lot of logic in simply taxing people when they get money, regardless of where it comes from.
VAT is double taxation. So is Council Tax. Yet you only get the "double taxation" complaint about IHT. Odd.
My wages are triple taxed. Income Tax, Employers NIC and Employee NIC. All at the same time.
Claims of double taxation as tax may have been paid decades ago (and often it was not) deserve zero sympathy.
Not the headline/push notification Starmer/Reeves would have wanted.
Two questions there.
1. Titanic, on your phone? 2. 8am and your battery is nearly dead. Did you stay ‘out’ last night?
1) Yes, my phone is called Titanic, back in 2010 when my phone synced with my car it used to say ‘phone syncing’, so I renamed my phone Titanic so whenever it synced it would say ‘Titanic syncing’ which is amused me.
2) My new iPhone 16 Pro Max has a phenomenal battery, I can go two whole days on a full charge and I hate charging overnight so it was 18% last night when I went to bed.
Why ?
I like to have my phone off overnight these days.
When it is on I get distracted.
Just admit it, you were "out" on a school night weren't you? 👀
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
No more IHT.
Would you also tax gifts?
I'd ban them for adults. Who really wants socks and toileteries from their family and friends. And who wants to spend their time coming up with fresh ideas.
I do. I can't be arsed to go shopping for that stuff so I need my annual pants and spray packages
Battery manufacturing capacity is a national security essential.
Biggest US drone maker @SkydioHQ which supplies Ukraine with drones for intelligence gathering) faces supply chain crisis after China bans company from selling batteries to the group. https://x.com/Dimi/status/1851810020855296369
I've noticed, though not here, that there's a lot of delusional people who think that the two NI will be paid for by businesses who will take it out of their profit margins. I guess these will be the same people that blame their employers when wages are frozen for three years to recover the losses.
I think that the government are banking on getting the credit for the spending increases, while businesses get the blame for wage freezes.
We'll see whether that works.
Logically given we've had cuts to employee NI of 4% over the 2 last Hunt budgets, neither of which Reeves has reversed, and now a rise of 1.2% in employer NI, you would expect the net impact on take home pay to be positive.
I'm not sure how sensible it was for Reeves to promise not to reverse the last NI cut, which was clearly unaffordable and ate massively into fiscal headroom, but I suppose she had to do that for electoral purposes.
The long term solution - moving to a land value tax - remains out of sight for the foreseeable future, until we get a Lib Dem majority government.
Shifting from employee to employers NI has some advantages:
It makes public sector pay restraint easier to manage by increasing the burden on rival employers It allows a differentiation between small and big business through the employment allowance Psychologically it is less visible to voters
It is worse than moving NI into IT but if we have NI shifting it from employee to employer makes some sense.
On social care, it will likely be one of the sectors hardest hit by the NI and minimum wages hikes. I'm guessing the small increase in funding in the budget just about covers this ?
If the budget unwravels in the media, it could well be when it dawns on commentators that a big slice of the extra funding for health, schools, councils and the rest will be eaten up by the government's own employers' NI increase. Indeed by my reckoning the extra NI for a typical local council's workforce will cost more than the 1.5% real increase in funding that Reeves threw them in yesterday's speech, assuming a pay rise in April that is near CPI.
I think Labour will have to implement pay freezes across big chunks of the public sector fir a few years to make the NI tax figures work out. I don't think they have the fortitude to see off the unions on it though.
I’d expect see further tax rises, to cover the extra costs imposed upon public sector pay budgets.
(1) They won't get £25bn (net) from raising employers NI to 15% (2) They won't get anything like £9bn from putting VAT and business rates on private schools, which is just a fantasy (3) All the money they put into the NHS will be soaked up by higher wages and prices and headcount, with no real shift in output (4) The economy in general will grow more slowly; the £21bn planned for CCUS is pissing money up the wall - and a huge missed opportunity for UK Plc (5) You can forget the income tax thresholds becoming unfrozen in 2028
I expect the UK to be in an even worse position by 2028-29 than if Sunak/Hunt had stayed in office, and I say that as someone who was never impressed by their aversion to capital investment.
Nevertheless the budget the Tories would have given us, in the same circumstances, would have been absolute **** and very damaging, if in different ways.
Lol. Got it. It wasn't a Tory budget so this one was better. Such is the level of thinking some go in on.
I want someone to end the triple lock, put boundaries on what the NHS gives and introduce social insurance for covering other care and risk, and cut back on PIP benefit culture.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
No more IHT.
Would you also tax gifts?
I'd ban them for adults. Who really wants socks and toileteries from their family and friends. And who wants to spend their time coming up with fresh ideas.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
It’s already been taxed though
The basic principle is that government taxes economic activity: wealth generation (income tax or capital gains tax); spending or asset purchases (stamp duty, VAT, etc); or charges for services provided (council tax).
To tax inheritance as income breaches that principle and becomes effective confiscation.
In the extreme example, if someone gets a large bonus and pays income tax, then keels over and dies from excitement why is it just that the government should take 92% of that bonus for the Treasury (45% income tax + 2% NIC + 45% IHT)
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
No more IHT.
What's your limit on gifts? Or does everyone have to fill in a tax return every year? Ornaybe every time they get a credit in their bank account?
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
No more IHT.
Would you also tax gifts?
I'd ban them for adults. Who really wants socks and toileteries from their family and friends. And who wants to spend their time coming up with fresh ideas.
Point of order, I would welcome some socks.
But gifts tend to novelty socks despite me never wearing novelty clothing......maybe its just me who finds it all tiresome.
I've noticed, though not here, that there's a lot of delusional people who think that the two NI will be paid for by businesses who will take it out of their profit margins. I guess these will be the same people that blame their employers when wages are frozen for three years to recover the losses.
I think that the government are banking on getting the credit for the spending increases, while businesses get the blame for wage freezes.
We'll see whether that works.
Logically given we've had cuts to employee NI of 4% over the 2 last Hunt budgets, neither of which Reeves has reversed, and now a rise of 1.2% in employer NI, you would expect the net impact on take home pay to be positive.
I'm not sure how sensible it was for Reeves to promise not to reverse the last NI cut, which was clearly unaffordable and ate massively into fiscal headroom, but I suppose she had to do that for electoral purposes.
The long term solution - moving to a land value tax - remains out of sight for the foreseeable future, until we get a Lib Dem majority government.
Shifting from employee to employers NI has some advantages:
It makes public sector pay restraint easier to manage by increasing the burden on rival employers It allows a differentiation between small and big business through the employment allowance Psychologically it is less visible to voters
It is worse than moving NI into IT but if we have NI shifting it from employee to employer makes some sense.
It's not been shifted though. There's been no commensurate cut on Employee NIC just a rise in Employer NIC.
So we have simply an increase in taxes on workers while those who get their income without going to work for it aren't paying a penny.
Terrible move.
And no you can't count the already banked cut in Employee NIC that was fully funded as part of an overall package of tax rises.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
No more IHT.
Would you also tax gifts?
I'd ban them for adults. Who really wants socks and toileteries from their family and friends. And who wants to spend their time coming up with fresh ideas.
I do. I can't be arsed to go shopping for that stuff so I need my annual pants and spray packages
Its about 4 clicks on a Sainsbury's order. To get stuff you choose rather than someone else does.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
No more IHT.
You'll still get the cries of "double taxation". But there is a lot of logic in simply taxing people when they get money, regardless of where it comes from.
VAT is double taxation. So is Council Tax. Yet you only get the "double taxation" complaint about IHT. Odd.
I think because it's so visible. Your executors have to file a probate return and pay the tax as a lump sum. It's not just a line on a receipt.
I'd argue none of those things are actual double taxation as properly defined, because they are taxes on something else - on consumption, or property, not on the same income. Double taxation mainly occurs in the domain of international tax and is what treaties are for.
Just had a thought. Recompensating public bodies for NI increases could be creeping into state aid when it comes to competing procurement. . And whilst not a member of the single market we will have treaty requirements.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
It’s already been taxed though
The basic principle is that government taxes economic activity: wealth generation (income tax or capital gains tax); spending or asset purchases (stamp duty, VAT, etc); or charges for services provided (council tax).
To tax inheritance as income breaches that principle and becomes effective confiscation.
In the extreme example, if someone gets a large bonus and pays income tax, then keels over and dies from excitement why is it just that the government should take 92% of that bonus for the Treasury (45% income tax + 2% NIC + 45% IHT)
I can count it how I like thanks. Over the last three budgets thats the shift.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
No more IHT.
Would you also tax gifts?
I'd ban them for adults. Who really wants socks and toileteries from their family and friends. And who wants to spend their time coming up with fresh ideas.
I do. I can't be arsed to go shopping for that stuff so I need my annual pants and spray packages
Its about 4 clicks on a Sainsbury's order. To get stuff you choose rather than someone else does.
Too much effort. I like them encased in reindeer paper.
Well at least we've not woken up to news that the economy is "crashing" - Kier and Rachel will probably take that and put it in the win column, lol!
We have choked off growth and wages and helped fuel higher inflation for longer and higher interest rates too. And there will be more tax to come.
Just because there isn't a dramatic market reaction that sinks the pound in 48 hours doesn't mean this isn't a very bad move.
10 Year now at 4.444%, 5 yr at 4.322 . There has definitely been a market reaction, a bit of a slower burner and not as dramatic as Truss's but considering I locked in at 3.79 for the next 5 years from next March it's looking like an absolute steal right now.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
Yesterday went some way towards that. 20% IHT on business and agricultural property above the threshold.
Our regime is out of step with other developed European countries, which generally have broader bases and lower rates.
Agricultural property used to be exempt, so yesterday’s changes are simply a tax rise that sends even more money to the lawyers and accountants.
Isn't the concern that wealthy non-farming people have been buying farmland to evade IHT when they die?
Well someone has to own the land, which is a public good.
If they keep closing loopholes while maintaining a 40% rate, people are going to start buying their kids and grandkids gold bars for Christmas presents.
Either that, or spend money on lawyers. But f*** lawyers, gold bars it is.
On social care, it will likely be one of the sectors hardest hit by the NI and minimum wages hikes. I'm guessing the small increase in funding in the budget just about covers this ?
If the budget unwravels in the media, it could well be when it dawns on commentators that a big slice of the extra funding for health, schools, councils and the rest will be eaten up by the government's own employers' NI increase. Indeed by my reckoning the extra NI for a typical local council's workforce will cost more than the 1.5% real increase in funding that Reeves threw them in yesterday's speech, assuming a pay rise in April that is near CPI.
I think Labour will have to implement pay freezes across big chunks of the public sector fir a few years to make the NI tax figures work out. I don't think they have the fortitude to see off the unions on it though.
I’d expect see further tax rises, to cover the extra costs imposed upon public sector pay budgets.
(1) They won't get £25bn (net) from raising employers NI to 15% (2) They won't get anything like £9bn from putting VAT and business rates on private schools, which is just a fantasy (3) All the money they put into the NHS will be soaked up by higher wages and prices and headcount, with no real shift in output (4) The economy in general will grow more slowly; the £21bn planned for CCUS is pissing money up the wall - and a huge missed opportunity for UK Plc (5) You can forget the income tax thresholds becoming unfrozen in 2028
I expect the UK to be in an even worse position by 2028-29 than if Sunak/Hunt had stayed in office, and I say that as someone who was never impressed by their aversion to capital investment.
There is certainly a serious danger of that.
Even on the government's own forecasts, the budget does nothing at all for growth beyond the first two years' sugar rush from the big upfront (and unsustained) increase in spending. Indeed growth is forecast to be lower than previously projected beyond that.
Some of the infrastructure investment is no doubt absolutely necessary. But there's very little economic benefit from the rest of the stuff described as 'investment'.
The other comment being made today, is that if you look four or five years ahead, the budget makes very much the same completely unrealistic projections for departmental spending that Hunt was making just before the election. Unless there are miraculous and unprecedented productivity improvements in government (or a large increase in economic growth above what's forecast), there is another incipient unfunded "black hole".
Without some massive reforms (genuine scrapping of burdensome regulation might do it - but there's little sign of that), then there's not much to look forward to. Other than more tax increases.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
It’s already been taxed though
The basic principle is that government taxes economic activity: wealth generation (income tax or capital gains tax); spending or asset purchases (stamp duty, VAT, etc); or charges for services provided (council tax).
To tax inheritance as income breaches that principle and becomes effective confiscation.
In the extreme example, if someone gets a large bonus and pays income tax, then keels over and dies from excitement why is it just that the government should take 92% of that bonus for the Treasury (45% income tax + 2% NIC + 45% IHT)
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
It’s already been taxed though
The basic principle is that government taxes economic activity: wealth generation (income tax or capital gains tax); spending or asset purchases (stamp duty, VAT, etc); or charges for services provided (council tax).
To tax inheritance as income breaches that principle and becomes effective confiscation.
In the extreme example, if someone gets a large bonus and pays income tax, then keels over and dies from excitement why is it just that the government should take 92% of that bonus for the Treasury (45% income tax + 2% NIC + 45% IHT)
Bullshit has it already been taxed. When was it already taxed? Most people's inheritances are not coming out of someone's post tax salary and that alone.
As for already taxed that's true of everything. Wages are triple taxed simultaneously and paid out of the post tax income that a firm gets, why should wages be more heavily taxed than any other income?
I've noticed, though not here, that there's a lot of delusional people who think that the two NI will be paid for by businesses who will take it out of their profit margins. I guess these will be the same people that blame their employers when wages are frozen for three years to recover the losses.
I think that the government are banking on getting the credit for the spending increases, while businesses get the blame for wage freezes.
We'll see whether that works.
Logically given we've had cuts to employee NI of 4% over the 2 last Hunt budgets, neither of which Reeves has reversed, and now a rise of 1.2% in employer NI, you would expect the net impact on take home pay to be positive.
I'm not sure how sensible it was for Reeves to promise not to reverse the last NI cut, which was clearly unaffordable and ate massively into fiscal headroom, but I suppose she had to do that for electoral purposes.
The long term solution - moving to a land value tax - remains out of sight for the foreseeable future, until we get a Lib Dem majority government.
Shifting from employee to employers NI has some advantages:
It makes public sector pay restraint easier to manage by increasing the burden on rival employers It allows a differentiation between small and big business through the employment allowance Psychologically it is less visible to voters
It is worse than moving NI into IT but if we have NI shifting it from employee to employer makes some sense.
One of the demerits is that it creates an incentive for employers to classify employees as private contractors. This then leads to the employees losing a whole bunch of employment protection rights (sick pay, wrongful dismissal, etc) and creates pointless work for lawyers arguing in court whether workers are employees or contractors.
Obviously there's a short term political advantage in hiding taxation from the voters, but I think a situation where the basic rate of income tax is 20%, but taxation receipts are 38% of the economy is one that infantilises voters and makes honest debate about taxation and spending more difficult.
In the extreme example, if someone gets a large bonus and pays income tax, then keels over and dies from excitement why is it just that the government should take 92% of that bonus for the Treasury (45% income tax + 2% NIC + 45% IHT)
And if the person that inherits it then immediately keels over and dies then it'll be 137% taken from the grandkids! Or alternatively maybe percentages don't work like that.
Presumably money placed on poly markets has to be matched? So those people could be rationally hedging their polymarket bet at better odds on Betfair, so shorter odds on Betfair. Didn't someone link to an article speculating that these bets are a hedge on crypto positions?
I've noticed, though not here, that there's a lot of delusional people who think that the two NI will be paid for by businesses who will take it out of their profit margins. I guess these will be the same people that blame their employers when wages are frozen for three years to recover the losses.
I think that the government are banking on getting the credit for the spending increases, while businesses get the blame for wage freezes.
We'll see whether that works.
Logically given we've had cuts to employee NI of 4% over the 2 last Hunt budgets, neither of which Reeves has reversed, and now a rise of 1.2% in employer NI, you would expect the net impact on take home pay to be positive.
I'm not sure how sensible it was for Reeves to promise not to reverse the last NI cut, which was clearly unaffordable and ate massively into fiscal headroom, but I suppose she had to do that for electoral purposes.
The long term solution - moving to a land value tax - remains out of sight for the foreseeable future, until we get a Lib Dem majority government.
How does a land value tax connect to employment based taxes.
A land value tax competes against / replaces council tax, business rates and stamp duty...
What annoyed me yesterday is that that area wasn't discussed at all and council tax requires serious reform...
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
Yesterday went some way towards that. 20% IHT on business and agricultural property above the threshold.
Our regime is out of step with other developed European countries, which generally have broader bases and lower rates.
Agricultural property used to be exempt, so yesterday’s changes are simply a tax rise that sends even more money to the lawyers and accountants.
Isn't the concern that wealthy non-farming people have been buying farmland to evade IHT when they die?
Avoid. Not evade.
Evade=illegal Avoid=finding a legal loophole. It's reasonable for governments to close loopholes.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
It’s already been taxed though
The basic principle is that government taxes economic activity: wealth generation (income tax or capital gains tax); spending or asset purchases (stamp duty, VAT, etc); or charges for services provided (council tax).
To tax inheritance as income breaches that principle and becomes effective confiscation.
In the extreme example, if someone gets a large bonus and pays income tax, then keels over and dies from excitement why is it just that the government should take 92% of that bonus for the Treasury (45% income tax + 2% NIC + 45% IHT)
Who else is more deserving than the general public via the Treasury?
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
It’s already been taxed though
The basic principle is that government taxes economic activity: wealth generation (income tax or capital gains tax); spending or asset purchases (stamp duty, VAT, etc); or charges for services provided (council tax).
To tax inheritance as income breaches that principle and becomes effective confiscation.
In the extreme example, if someone gets a large bonus and pays income tax, then keels over and dies from excitement why is it just that the government should take 92% of that bonus for the Treasury (45% income tax + 2% NIC + 45% IHT)
Ok, so lets have an exemption for income received in the final 24 hours before death?
I've noticed, though not here, that there's a lot of delusional people who think that the two NI will be paid for by businesses who will take it out of their profit margins. I guess these will be the same people that blame their employers when wages are frozen for three years to recover the losses.
I think that the government are banking on getting the credit for the spending increases, while businesses get the blame for wage freezes.
We'll see whether that works.
Logically given we've had cuts to employee NI of 4% over the 2 last Hunt budgets, neither of which Reeves has reversed, and now a rise of 1.2% in employer NI, you would expect the net impact on take home pay to be positive.
I'm not sure how sensible it was for Reeves to promise not to reverse the last NI cut, which was clearly unaffordable and ate massively into fiscal headroom, but I suppose she had to do that for electoral purposes.
The long term solution - moving to a land value tax - remains out of sight for the foreseeable future, until we get a Lib Dem majority government.
How does a land value tax connect to employment based taxes.
A land value tax competes against / replaces council tax, business rates and stamp duty...
What annoyed me yesterday is that that area wasn't discussed at all and council tax requires serious reform...
All taxes compete with all others.
If we have a budget balanced by land taxes then that can cut employment taxes.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
No more IHT.
You'll still get the cries of "double taxation". But there is a lot of logic in simply taxing people when they get money, regardless of where it comes from.
It’s not just “cries”, it’s an important principle.
Under @BartholomewRoberts’ approach the government would - in theory - end up owning everything by taking 40-45% each time someone dies.
People should make a fair contribution by paying a share of the increase in their wealth.
Serious fury from pro Ukraine voices now. One can still dream that’s it’s a big psyop and on the morning of 6th Nov, Ukraine will launch a huge surprise operation aimed at crushing the Russian army. But that sadly feels like wish casting.
“Biden sabotaged Ukraine's confidential plans then didn't honor the request to keep those plans confidential, spreading it to media to further sabotage.
Biden is a f**king piece of sh*t and now costing thousands of deaths.”
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
Yes, my MiL was in a very nice care home and very well looked after for 18 months, but the fees left only £50 000 from the sale of her bungalow for Mrs Foxy and her sister.
Personally I thought that fine, as that's what her savings were for, to keep her comfortable and well fed in her dotage.
It is a bit of a lottery though. Not all of us get to keel over quickly and painlessly reaching for the ketchup as Alec Salmond did the other week.
Then imagine how situations such as that interact with the euthanasia assisted dying bill that is currently being discussed…
Yes, that is my concern. There will be a direct financial incentive for families to bump off their elders.
Most families will consider quality of life and distress, but anyone with a financial interest in an early death and bigger inheritance has a clear conflict of interest.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
Yep, although I completely disagree with @hyufd on IHT and I am more in line with @BartholomewRoberts there is no doubting @HYUFD views represent a huge constituency of voters and you have to respect that to some extent.
I do think the pension pot change is right as it was an anomaly, but you can't ignore that it will bring into IHT an awful lot of people who previously were nowhere near it.
It'll trigger behavioural change though. People will take their pensions rather than keeping hold of them. There's a lot to be said for encouraging older people to spend the money and assets they have. Ideally on having a good time rather than social care, but realistically both.
The retired are such a huge proportion of the population now that we rely heavily on them for consumer spending. That's the only way they pay meaningful tax - through VAT - while keeping the economy afloat.
The maths is brutal. You have an ever expanding dependent population with ever increasing health and social care needs, coupled with an ever-decreasing working age population that is only going to shrink further now birth rates have sunk so low (even with significant immigration). So unless the retired either keep working much longer or spend spend spend, the tax on working age people has to rise inexorably simply for public services to stand still.
I agree with all of that except 'It'll trigger behavioural change'. It won't. It is the one time that won't because you don't know when you are going to die. You need the pot to live on so you have to keep it. You won't blow it because otherwise you have nothing to live on. If you remove it and keep it, it still attracts IHT when you die. You might distribute some funds before you die, but again what you have to distribute is unchanged.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
No more IHT.
What's your limit on gifts? Or does everyone have to fill in a tax return every year? Ornaybe every time they get a credit in their bank account?
Banks should be forced to act as unpaid tax collectors like PAYE… withhold 20% of every credit and let the individual claim it back at the end of the year
Not the headline/push notification Starmer/Reeves would have wanted.
Two questions there.
1. Titanic, on your phone? 2. 8am and your battery is nearly dead. Did you stay ‘out’ last night?
1) Yes, my phone is called Titanic, back in 2010 when my phone synced with my car it used to say ‘phone syncing’, so I renamed my phone Titanic so whenever it synced it would say ‘Titanic syncing’ which is amused me.
2) My new iPhone 16 Pro Max has a phenomenal battery, I can go two whole days on a full charge and I hate charging overnight so it was 18% last night when I went to bed.
Why ?
I like to have my phone off overnight these days.
When it is on I get distracted.
You do know it will still charge if its plugged in and turned off?
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
No more IHT.
You'll still get the cries of "double taxation". But there is a lot of logic in simply taxing people when they get money, regardless of where it comes from.
It’s not just “cries”, it’s an important principle.
Under @BartholomewRoberts’ approach the government would - in theory - end up owning everything by taking 40-45% each time someone dies.
People should make a fair contribution by paying a share of the increase in their wealth.
Bullshit would it, maths doesn't work that way.
Generations apart someone dying and someone else getting an inheritance is no more significant that minutes apart people going to work and earning a living.
I've noticed, though not here, that there's a lot of delusional people who think that the two NI will be paid for by businesses who will take it out of their profit margins. I guess these will be the same people that blame their employers when wages are frozen for three years to recover the losses.
I think that the government are banking on getting the credit for the spending increases, while businesses get the blame for wage freezes.
We'll see whether that works.
Logically given we've had cuts to employee NI of 4% over the 2 last Hunt budgets, neither of which Reeves has reversed, and now a rise of 1.2% in employer NI, you would expect the net impact on take home pay to be positive.
I'm not sure how sensible it was for Reeves to promise not to reverse the last NI cut, which was clearly unaffordable and ate massively into fiscal headroom, but I suppose she had to do that for electoral purposes.
The long term solution - moving to a land value tax - remains out of sight for the foreseeable future, until we get a Lib Dem majority government.
Shifting from employee to employers NI has some advantages:
It makes public sector pay restraint easier to manage by increasing the burden on rival employers It allows a differentiation between small and big business through the employment allowance Psychologically it is less visible to voters
It is worse than moving NI into IT but if we have NI shifting it from employee to employer makes some sense.
One of the demerits is that it creates an incentive for employers to classify employees as private contractors. This then leads to the employees losing a whole bunch of employment protection rights (sick pay, wrongful dismissal, etc) and creates pointless work for lawyers arguing in court whether workers are employees or contractors.
Obviously there's a short term political advantage in hiding taxation from the voters, but I think a situation where the basic rate of income tax is 20%, but taxation receipts are 38% of the economy is one that infantilises voters and makes honest debate about taxation and spending more difficult.
Got to ask how that works - if you employ agency staff the agency still needs to cover the Employer NI and holiday pay and will want a 10% (at least) margin on top to cover the hassle involved?
An increase in Employer NI will have limited impact on employ direct vs agency. The impact will be on take on a new work or try and get existing employees to work harder.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
No more IHT.
What's your limit on gifts? Or does everyone have to fill in a tax return every year? Ornaybe every time they get a credit in their bank account?
£10K
How often? To how many people?
Once a year. To as many people as you like.
Ireland taxes gifts. €3,000 yearly to as many people as you like. Lifetime gift allowance to your children of €400,000. It can be done.
I've noticed, though not here, that there's a lot of delusional people who think that the two NI will be paid for by businesses who will take it out of their profit margins. I guess these will be the same people that blame their employers when wages are frozen for three years to recover the losses.
I think that the government are banking on getting the credit for the spending increases, while businesses get the blame for wage freezes.
We'll see whether that works.
Logically given we've had cuts to employee NI of 4% over the 2 last Hunt budgets, neither of which Reeves has reversed, and now a rise of 1.2% in employer NI, you would expect the net impact on take home pay to be positive.
I'm not sure how sensible it was for Reeves to promise not to reverse the last NI cut, which was clearly unaffordable and ate massively into fiscal headroom, but I suppose she had to do that for electoral purposes.
The long term solution - moving to a land value tax - remains out of sight for the foreseeable future, until we get a Lib Dem majority government.
How does a land value tax connect to employment based taxes.
A land value tax competes against / replaces council tax, business rates and stamp duty...
What annoyed me yesterday is that that area wasn't discussed at all and council tax requires serious reform...
All taxes compete with all others.
If we have a budget balanced by land taxes then that can cut employment taxes.
Exactly, a radical approach to taxation means substituting land taxation for other forms of tax (first stop would be other real estate related taxes, but then I would go to corporation tax and from there onwards into income taxes). And devolve some taxing rights regionally enabling proper internal tax competition and experimentation.
Not the headline/push notification Starmer/Reeves would have wanted.
Two questions there.
1. Titanic, on your phone? 2. 8am and your battery is nearly dead. Did you stay ‘out’ last night?
1) Yes, my phone is called Titanic, back in 2010 when my phone synced with my car it used to say ‘phone syncing’, so I renamed my phone Titanic so whenever it synced it would say ‘Titanic syncing’ which is amused me.
2) My new iPhone 16 Pro Max has a phenomenal battery, I can go two whole days on a full charge and I hate charging overnight so it was 18% last night when I went to bed.
Why ?
I like to have my phone off overnight these days.
When it is on I get distracted.
Just put it in airplane mode, and disconnect from the Wifi.
Battery manufacturing capacity is a national security essential.
Biggest US drone maker @SkydioHQ which supplies Ukraine with drones for intelligence gathering) faces supply chain crisis after China bans company from selling batteries to the group. https://x.com/Dimi/status/1851810020855296369
Not the headline/push notification Starmer/Reeves would have wanted.
Two questions there.
1. Titanic, on your phone? 2. 8am and your battery is nearly dead. Did you stay ‘out’ last night?
1) Yes, my phone is called Titanic, back in 2010 when my phone synced with my car it used to say ‘phone syncing’, so I renamed my phone Titanic so whenever it synced it would say ‘Titanic syncing’ which is amused me.
2) My new iPhone 16 Pro Max has a phenomenal battery, I can go two whole days on a full charge and I hate charging overnight so it was 18% last night when I went to bed.
Why ?
I like to have my phone off overnight these days.
When it is on I get distracted.
You do know it will still charge if its plugged in and turned off?
Not the headline/push notification Starmer/Reeves would have wanted.
Two questions there.
1. Titanic, on your phone? 2. 8am and your battery is nearly dead. Did you stay ‘out’ last night?
1) Yes, my phone is called Titanic, back in 2010 when my phone synced with my car it used to say ‘phone syncing’, so I renamed my phone Titanic so whenever it synced it would say ‘Titanic syncing’ which is amused me.
2) My new iPhone 16 Pro Max has a phenomenal battery, I can go two whole days on a full charge and I hate charging overnight so it was 18% last night when I went to bed.
Why ?
I like to have my phone off overnight these days.
When it is on I get distracted.
You can turn a phone off and still charge it. At least you can with phones from decent manufacturers.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
I may be missing something with the bringing of DC pensions/SIPP's into IHT but these pensions are there to provide an income to people in retirement and not be a tax efficient vehicle to pass money down to their inheritors.
I cannot see how this is a bad thing.
Maybe I am missing something, as I say. Happy to be corrected.
I also agree with you on IHT. It is unearned and it reinforces privilege and wealth. It is anti meritocratic. My view may be different if I was likely to inherit a substantial sum,
Presumably bringing pension pots into IHT is seen as bad by those people who have been using their pension scheme to avoid IHT and who will now need to change.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
My solution fixes that, it should be abolished and inheritance should be taxed as income instead.
No more IHT.
What's your limit on gifts? Or does everyone have to fill in a tax return every year? Ornaybe every time they get a credit in their bank account?
£10K
How often? To how many people?
Once a year. To as many people as you like.
Ireland taxes gifts. €3,000 yearly to as many people as you like. Lifetime gift allowance to your children of €400,000. It can be done.
France allows you to gift up to €100k every, I think, 10 or possibly 15 years (I should know, I was looking into it recently as my parents were handing over their half of the ownership of our French house).
I think the focus on farmers is a bit strange. I am sure I heard that around a third of actual farmers are tenant farmers, but don’t know how many farmers that till their own soil have properties over the threshold.
However, the Government are claiming that only around a quarter of agricultural estates will be impacted. Of that quarter how many families of farmers will actually end up paying more? Is it not more likely that the impact will be on large landowners - city farmers as I have heard them called - that don’t actually do any digging of dirt or spreading of manure. I appreciate that their benefactors may squeeze the tenants to pay the bill (although pretty sure they haven’t the greatest reputation for looking after tenants). So what is the real problem?
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
It’s already been taxed though
The basic principle is that government taxes economic activity: wealth generation (income tax or capital gains tax); spending or asset purchases (stamp duty, VAT, etc); or charges for services provided (council tax).
To tax inheritance as income breaches that principle and becomes effective confiscation.
In the extreme example, if someone gets a large bonus and pays income tax, then keels over and dies from excitement why is it just that the government should take 92% of that bonus for the Treasury (45% income tax + 2% NIC + 45% IHT)
Personally I think the "basic principle" is that the government taxes where it can practically speaking get its hands on the money and where it can build or rely on a social consensus that that taxation is not completely outrageous.
PS council tax isn't "charges for services provided" -- I don't get a rebate because I'm not using the local education system, for example, and the money that council tax does raise isn't the only source of funding for the services councils provide. It's just a tax imposed on people to raise money, same as any other tax.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
Yep, although I completely disagree with @hyufd on IHT and I am more in line with @BartholomewRoberts there is no doubting @HYUFD views represent a huge constituency of voters and you have to respect that to some extent.
I do think the pension pot change is right as it was an anomaly, but you can't ignore that it will bring into IHT an awful lot of people who previously were nowhere near it.
Here's a question - if ALL inheritance was taxed like that (Including farmland which would go way way beyond Labour's plans) then surely every single farmer would be forced to sell up (Let's pretend you can't get out of it via "trust") for the sake of argument.
What happens to the price of agricultural land ?
If it was 10% per generation, say 25 years, then it should be easy enough to mortgage the land.
Maybe sell off an acre or two for housing every so often, if there’s some decent planning reform.
The problem with 20% or even 40% rates is that you can’t really do that, and then there is a forced sale of the land.
I keep an eye on a friends farm for him - he’s sick and his brother lives in Chile. It doesn’t work to sell a field every so often - you rapidly drop below critical mass
"By provoking and then taking apparent pleasure in dramatic reactions from their critics, Trump and his team encourage his supporters’ feelings of vitriol toward fellow Americans—feelings Trump has spent years feeding by referring to his political opponents as enemies, “vermin,” “lunatics,” and “thugs.” Harris and her team will make a much stronger closing statement if they refuse to give Trump the satisfaction of being their campaign’s main subject. But it’s also up to the American voting public to resist being baited by the outrage that Trump stokes, and to refuse the path of vengeance that he represents."
ie when Trump goes low (which is most of the time) you're probably best ignoring it. But then the risk is his vile rhetoric and behaviour becomes normalized. Tricky.
I like the reference to the voters here. At the end of the day it's up to them. Do they really want this shit?
Fundamentally, our highly westernised individualistic model means we expect people who need help and those who need care to be fully independent or cared for by paid others without any recourse to extended families or communities who'd do it essentially for free with a bit of aid and help.
This is not normal, throughout human history or in the rest of the world, where extended families care for their elderly parents and those with disabilities.
That doesn't bankrupt nations. And psychologically it's better for them too.
It is though dependent on family members living locally and being available so difficult where both of a couple work or if the elderly parent does not live near them. If the elderly parent has to move in, then a bigger house is needed, and possibly significant modifications.
Not the headline/push notification Starmer/Reeves would have wanted.
Two questions there.
1. Titanic, on your phone? 2. 8am and your battery is nearly dead. Did you stay ‘out’ last night?
1) Yes, my phone is called Titanic, back in 2010 when my phone synced with my car it used to say ‘phone syncing’, so I renamed my phone Titanic so whenever it synced it would say ‘Titanic syncing’ which is amused me.
2) My new iPhone 16 Pro Max has a phenomenal battery, I can go two whole days on a full charge and I hate charging overnight so it was 18% last night when I went to bed.
Why ?
I like to have my phone off overnight these days.
When it is on I get distracted.
You do know it will still charge if its plugged in and turned off?
But at a much slower rate.
To maximise battery health - although that won't matter for you as you upgrade your phone annually (more fool you).
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
Yesterday went some way towards that. 20% IHT on business and agricultural property above the threshold.
Our regime is out of step with other developed European countries, which generally have broader bases and lower rates.
Agricultural property used to be exempt, so yesterday’s changes are simply a tax rise that sends even more money to the lawyers and accountants.
Isn't the concern that wealthy non-farming people have been buying farmland to evade IHT when they die?
Avoid. Not evade.
Evade=illegal Avoid=finding a legal loophole. It's reasonable for governments to close loopholes.
The distinction between the two isn't as clear as it was, of course. But if it's a government designed exemption, which was true for agricultural land, it's not a loophole.
Rich non-farmers buying agricultural land just in order to pass down assets, while avoiding IHT, wasn't really part of the plan.
Not the headline/push notification Starmer/Reeves would have wanted.
Two questions there.
1. Titanic, on your phone? 2. 8am and your battery is nearly dead. Did you stay ‘out’ last night?
Re 2. I'll often charge my phone in the morning by plugging* it into my laptop when I start work or, on non-work days, plugging it in to a USB socket over breakfast. Exceptions are 1-2 days I cycle to work when it's charged overnight in case I need it on the way.
Serious fury from pro Ukraine voices now. One can still dream that’s it’s a big psyop and on the morning of 6th Nov, Ukraine will launch a huge surprise operation aimed at crushing the Russian army. But that sadly feels like wish casting.
“Biden sabotaged Ukraine's confidential plans then didn't honor the request to keep those plans confidential, spreading it to media to further sabotage.
Biden is a f**king piece of sh*t and now costing thousands of deaths.”
Yes, to say that they’re royally pissed off with Biden would be something of an understatement right now.
His actions are some way short of matching his words, European nations are going to have to step up no matter the result in the US next week.
When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.
I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.
You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.
We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.
And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
Except that for many families, thats status quo. I've just this second sent another £6,000 over to the care home for my mother's next month, and we're selling her now vacant flat in order to cover future costs. Almost any change to the current arrangements would likely reduce our burden, and the Dilnot cap would have been most welcome, as we'll be up to it in about a year's time.
Similar situation in my family. Our inheritance from both sides has been wiped out by care costs; a result of brilliant efforts of the NHS to keep my grandparents alive.
It's a lottery and why, under the current system, inheritance tax feels fair to me. I'd rather it was upfront insurance premium that everyone paid though.
If they made inheritance tax 10% but with no exceptions, it would almost certainly raise more money than the current scheme full of a very expensive avoidance industry, that catches mostly the middle classes who happen to have a house in the South and some savings or pension - while the seriously wealthy pay little to nothing.
If it were up to me all inheritances would be taxed the same as income, with no exceptions.
Going to work to earn £50,000 shouldn't be taxed a single penny more than inheriting £50,000 that you haven't gone to work to earn.
IHT seems to evoke more emotion than any other tax, which is why there are so many reliefs. Politically extremely difficult.
Yep, although I completely disagree with @hyufd on IHT and I am more in line with @BartholomewRoberts there is no doubting @HYUFD views represent a huge constituency of voters and you have to respect that to some extent.
I do think the pension pot change is right as it was an anomaly, but you can't ignore that it will bring into IHT an awful lot of people who previously were nowhere near it.
It'll trigger behavioural change though. People will take their pensions rather than keeping hold of them. There's a lot to be said for encouraging older people to spend the money and assets they have. Ideally on having a good time rather than social care, but realistically both.
The retired are such a huge proportion of the population now that we rely heavily on them for consumer spending. That's the only way they pay meaningful tax - through VAT - while keeping the economy afloat.
The maths is brutal. You have an ever expanding dependent population with ever increasing health and social care needs, coupled with an ever-decreasing working age population that is only going to shrink further now birth rates have sunk so low (even with significant immigration). So unless the retired either keep working much longer or spend spend spend, the tax on working age people has to rise inexorably simply for public services to stand still.
I agree with all of that except 'It'll trigger behavioural change'. It won't. It is the one time that won't because you don't know when you are going to die. You need the pot to live on so you have to keep it. You won't blow it because otherwise you have nothing to live on. If you remove it and keep it, it still attracts IHT when you die. You might distribute some funds before you die, but again what you have to distribute is unchanged.
It will likely see a further increase in annuities that had become less popular under ultra low interest rates.
Comments
they are getting it from the reduction in the starting point to £5000 from £9100 - that's £610 tax on anyone employing someone working more than 8 hours a week..
It's a sign of how times have changed. Many of those erstwhile free marketeers are now in favour of a form of autarky - see Redwood's twitter feed - and are returning to their older conservative roots of supporting the traditional rural economy. Not just on topics like IHT but more generally. With the one exception of wanting to do free trade deals with agri exporters like Australia and the US.
I believe they came in April 2024, but I'm not totally on top of the detail.
(Serious Q)
Trouble is that money was given last year / April so people have got used to the extra cash now..
We'll see whether that works.
I don't agree with it at all.
Biggest US drone maker @SkydioHQ which supplies Ukraine with drones for intelligence gathering) faces supply chain crisis after China bans company from selling batteries to the group.
https://x.com/Dimi/status/1851810020855296369
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PdKGDMhau4
I'm not sure how sensible it was for Reeves to promise not to reverse the last NI cut, which was clearly unaffordable and ate massively into fiscal headroom, but I suppose she had to do that for electoral purposes.
The long term solution - moving to a land value tax - remains out of sight for the foreseeable future, until we get a Lib Dem majority government.
Echo that heart, baby
When it is on I get distracted.
The Budget says £1.8bn from Private School VAT/ Business Rate changes. The £9bn is for that AND tax avoidance measures.
Is this the Telegraph or another paper lying or deliberately misdirecting again?
Cite from the Budget Docs:
2.62 The government is committed to ensuring that every child has access to high-quality education. To secure additional funding to help deliver commitments relating to education and young people, the government will introduce 20% VAT on education and boarding services provided for a charge by private schools from 1 January 2025. The government will also remove business rates charitable rate relief from private schools in England from April 2025.
Together, these policies are expected to raise £1.8 billion per year by 2029-30. The impact on the state education system as a whole is expected to be very small.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/672232d010b0d582ee8c4905/Autumn_Budget_2024__web_accessible_.pdf
(You can of course critique the £1.8bn, and I might agree in part, but we should be having a go at the budget - not tilting at windmills.)
(Bonus bit: Budget speech text:
We said in our manifesto that these changes…
… alongside our measures to tackle tax avoidance…
… would bring in £8.5bn by the final year of the forecast.
I can confirm today that they will in fact raise over £9bn)
EV tariff for the win.
I want someone to end the triple lock, put boundaries on what the NHS gives and introduce social insurance for covering other care and risk, and cut back on PIP benefit culture.
I've been consistently clear about this.
Claims of double taxation as tax may have been paid decades ago (and often it was not) deserve zero sympathy.
Just because there isn't a dramatic market reaction that sinks the pound in 48 hours doesn't mean this isn't a very bad move.
It makes public sector pay restraint easier to manage by increasing the burden on rival employers
It allows a differentiation between small and big business through the employment allowance
Psychologically it is less visible to voters
It is worse than moving NI into IT but if we have NI shifting it from employee to employer makes some sense.
The basic principle is that government taxes economic activity: wealth generation (income tax or capital gains tax); spending or asset purchases (stamp duty, VAT, etc); or charges for services provided (council tax).
To tax inheritance as income breaches that principle and becomes effective confiscation.
In the extreme example, if someone gets a large bonus and pays income tax, then keels over and dies from excitement why is it just that the government should take 92% of that bonus for the Treasury (45% income tax + 2% NIC + 45% IHT)
So we have simply an increase in taxes on workers while those who get their income without going to work for it aren't paying a penny.
Terrible move.
And no you can't count the already banked cut in Employee NIC that was fully funded as part of an overall package of tax rises.
I'd argue none of those things are actual double taxation as properly defined, because they are taxes on something else - on consumption, or property, not on the same income. Double taxation mainly occurs in the domain of international tax and is what treaties are for.
If they keep closing loopholes while maintaining a 40% rate, people are going to start buying their kids and grandkids gold bars for Christmas presents.
Either that, or spend money on lawyers. But f*** lawyers, gold bars it is.
Even on the government's own forecasts, the budget does nothing at all for growth beyond the first two years' sugar rush from the big upfront (and unsustained) increase in spending. Indeed growth is forecast to be lower than previously projected beyond that.
Some of the infrastructure investment is no doubt absolutely necessary. But there's very little economic benefit from the rest of the stuff described as 'investment'.
The other comment being made today, is that if you look four or five years ahead, the budget makes very much the same completely unrealistic projections for departmental spending that Hunt was making just before the election.
Unless there are miraculous and unprecedented productivity improvements in government (or a large increase in economic growth above what's forecast), there is another incipient unfunded "black hole".
Without some massive reforms (genuine scrapping of burdensome regulation might do it - but there's little sign of that), then there's not much to look forward to. Other than more tax increases.
100 - (100*0.53*0.55)
As for already taxed that's true of everything. Wages are triple taxed simultaneously and paid out of the post tax income that a firm gets, why should wages be more heavily taxed than any other income?
Obviously there's a short term political advantage in hiding taxation from the voters, but I think a situation where the basic rate of income tax is 20%, but taxation receipts are 38% of the economy is one that infantilises voters and makes honest debate about taxation and spending more difficult.
Laters all.
Didn't someone link to an article speculating that these bets are a hedge on crypto positions?
A land value tax competes against / replaces council tax, business rates and stamp duty...
What annoyed me yesterday is that that area wasn't discussed at all and council tax requires serious reform...
Avoid=finding a legal loophole. It's reasonable for governments to close loopholes.
If we have a budget balanced by land taxes then that can cut employment taxes.
Under @BartholomewRoberts’ approach the government would - in theory - end up owning everything by taking 40-45% each time someone dies.
People should make a fair contribution by paying a share of the increase in their wealth.
https://x.com/jayinkyiv/status/1851594771850293743?s=46&t=Vp6NqNN4ktoNY0DO98xlGA
“Biden sabotaged Ukraine's confidential plans then didn't honor the request to keep those plans confidential, spreading it to media to further sabotage.
Biden is a f**king piece of sh*t and now costing thousands of deaths.”
Most families will consider quality of life and distress, but anyone with a financial interest in an early death and bigger inheritance has a clear conflict of interest.
Generations apart someone dying and someone else getting an inheritance is no more significant that minutes apart people going to work and earning a living.
An increase in Employer NI will have limited impact on employ direct vs agency. The impact will be on take on a new work or try and get existing employees to work harder.
Ireland taxes gifts. €3,000 yearly to as many people as you like. Lifetime gift allowance to your children of €400,000.
It can be done.
However, the Government are claiming that only around a quarter of agricultural estates will be impacted. Of that quarter how many families of farmers will actually end up paying more? Is it not more likely that the impact will be on large landowners - city farmers as I have heard them called - that don’t actually do any digging of dirt or spreading of manure. I appreciate that their benefactors may squeeze the tenants to pay the bill (although pretty sure they haven’t the greatest reputation for looking after tenants). So what is the real problem?
Or am I missing something?
PS council tax isn't "charges for services provided" -- I don't get a rebate because I'm not using the local education system, for example, and the money that council tax does raise isn't the only source of funding for the services councils provide. It's just a tax imposed on people to raise money, same as any other tax.
"By provoking and then taking apparent pleasure in dramatic reactions from their critics, Trump and his team encourage his supporters’ feelings of vitriol toward fellow Americans—feelings Trump has spent years feeding by referring to his political opponents as enemies, “vermin,” “lunatics,” and “thugs.” Harris and her team will make a much stronger closing statement if they refuse to give Trump the satisfaction of being their campaign’s main subject. But it’s also up to the American voting public to resist being baited by the outrage that Trump stokes, and to refuse the path of vengeance that he represents."
ie when Trump goes low (which is most of the time) you're probably best ignoring it. But then the risk is his vile rhetoric and behaviour becomes normalized. Tricky.
I like the reference to the voters here. At the end of the day it's up to them. Do they really want this shit?
OR THE WORLD???
(Incidentally, am I reading them right- that there's a bigger GDP gain in years 1 and 2 than the projected GDP loss in years 4 and 5?)
But if it's a government designed exemption, which was true for agricultural land, it's not a loophole.
Rich non-farmers buying agricultural land just in order to pass down assets, while avoiding IHT, wasn't really part of the plan.
Re 1. Nothing to add, m'lud
*yep, I'm old-school, no wireless charging here
His actions are some way short of matching his words, European nations are going to have to step up no matter the result in the US next week.