SNP clown shoe of an MP doing the performative Sovereign People of Scotland bit again... utterly embarrassing
get up off your belly and grow a spine rather than be a London lickspittle
The Speaker should have told her to piss off and to come back when she has grown up. She was a year behind my daughter at school. A private school, naturally.
Well, I'd like to, but its an almost impossible task.
Can you start by telling us what's not embarrassing?
Well mostly I meant that we find ourselves in a sort of cornflake contest while the nation and the national debt swings in the wind.
It's just terrible. We don't have a government, but rather a comedy show. Louise Haigh is swanning around seeing who'd like to put their names into the hat for ministerial posts. I can't really imagine anything worse.
It just shows that you can never predict anything with politics especially in recent years .
But Starmer and Reeves managed to start kicking the foundations away when they decided to burn so much political capital on one of the biggest political own goals of all time.
Quite how neither saw the utter stupidity of the WFA decision is beyond me !
And you can trace back to the implosion in Starmers approval ratings from there .
That's easy to argue with hindsight. But at the time, the state pension had risen by quite a lot (around £800 in the previous year, I think), and they didn't foresee that there'd be such a negative reaction to the withdrawal of a couple of hundred quid WFA. And, to be honest, I can't quite see why it provoked the visceral reaction it did, including from people who are keen to abandon the triple lock.
The only problem with the WFA cut was that Starmer hadn't prepared the ground for it being necessary in the election campaign, the message of the cut being necessary was somewhat undermined by the generous settlement for junior doctors, and he didn't make it stick.
He saw it as a simple analogue to the abolition of lone parent benefit that Blair imposed early in his government, having no understanding of politics beyond that sort of simplistic paint-by-numbers approach.
That won't matter - there's hypocrites on all sides of the political spectrum on such an issue, so they all agree to mouth the right words knowing the public will quickly move on.
Kind of like how all footballers fake injuries, so no teams really complain about it despite it being blatant cheating.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
Just to clarify: my understanding is that a Burnham proposes to scrap the current IHT and replace it with a flat 10% rate with far fewer exemptions.
So really not red meat for the left. Actually good news mainly for the well off.
Yep. Very bad for the vast majority of people who don't currently pay any IHT but very good for the wealthiest in society. Not exactly great left wing policies and certainly not good for re-election prospects.
If they can make it work so that it frees up huge amounts of council tax to actually provide local services, on the other hand, then every Labour MP can point to the filled potholes, new buses, and clean town centres at the next election.
Figure out a way for councils to have enough money to fix all potholes and they'll win councils up and down the country for years. Even when a council is doing a very good job a pothole is taken as a visible sign that they are failing, perceptions would improve massively if the issue could be tackled.
Andrew Neill made the point about how Bray must be breaking noise laws and there are umpteen police just standing there outside Downing Street. Another example of not being a serious country that we don't do anything about Bray.
If Bray was a pro-Brexit campaigner, would he get the same soft treatment?
Who funds this piece of crap ?
Last time the Met nicked him for noise issues they lost. Why would they do it again and paint a target on their backs?
His trial previously heard Mr Bray had told police their map, illustrating where he could not use the speakers, was incorrect. Body-worn footage featured Mr Bray, wearing a yellow and blue top hat, repeatedly telling police "you've got the wrong map".
Was that the one where he was standing on the entrance road to a private car park, so he was not creating a public nuisance (or whatever)?
Parking in Camden used to be like that in the noughties; there were particular bits and pieces of places where for strange or historical reasons they could not enforce. I seem to recall one around Lissenden Gardens / Glenhurst Avenue close to Parliament Hill. I also recall it was sorted somehow.
My favourite one now, that I have never done, would be to protest something (maybe the dodgier bits of some of our private parking enforcement regime) by parking on an MP's London Driveway for a day. Unless it has changed somehow, which may have happened, a local authority cannot enforce on private land.
I'm not a particular fan, but I think there are far more significant street disturbance problems at present.
SW News reports Bristol MP Darren Jones considering a Leadership bid
Sky reporting similar about Al Cairns.
I can't see Jones getting any left wing support.
I can see Cairns getting some left wing support
I just cannot see more than 20 or 30 left wingers trying this futile gesture
We've had months of inertia with Tory Leadership Elections.
We need Leadership from Burnham and Streeting.
The pathetic reactions of Farage and Badenoch really show how vital it is got the Country that the new Labour leaders take over promptly
I think the normal Labour party policies still stand. They need 81 MPs to support them or they are not allowed to stand. So really this will, at worst, cause a delay of a couple of weeks until nominations close.
Madness. Some hopeless loon turns up from the regions and is Jean d'Arc.
IIRC that's the way it works.
Indeed. Jean put a spoke into the Treaty of Troyes. So instead of the English Henry V, the French Dauphin became King. If she hadn't succeeded, the French would be speaking English but would most likely still be producing stinky cheese.
It has been suggested Burnham will introduce a 10% IHT care levy on all estates
Seems a sensible suggestion but the entitled children of estates may kick and scream
Taxes on death are famously popular with voters.
A universal 10% inheritance tax would raise many billions more pounds than the current 40% inheritance tax, that most people with actual money do an awful lot to avoid.
Arthur Laffer was right.
You’re describing tax avoidance, not the Laffer effect. Common mistake.
Unless you’re suggesting rich people aren’t dying as a result of IHT?
I’m simply saying that a flat 10% tax raises more money than the current 40% arrangements, which mostly hit the middle-classes in the South East who have little more in assets than their own house.
The wealthy spend a lot of effort in setting up trusts and making early gifts to children, that simply wouldn’t occur under a 10% IHT regime.
I don’t disagree - but I think it’s important to distinguish when a tax is undermined by [removed out of sensitivity to TSE], in contrast to when it deters an activity that’s good for the wider economy.
I don’t care at all if the only asset is your £1 million house. It’s just a variation on people whining about being cash poor - sell it, buy a cottage in Yorkshire for £200k and you’ve got £800k left for the pub, yacht and robo-lawnmower.
they would have nose bleeds every day. Why should people have to sell their home to fund spongers who will not work , pretend to be ill and suck at the public teat all their lives. There lies the reason for the country being a shithole, spongers , ne'er do wells and bleeding heart champagne socialists
Just to clarify: my understanding is that a Burnham proposes to scrap the current IHT and replace it with a flat 10% rate with far fewer exemptions.
So really not red meat for the left. Actually good news mainly for the well off.
Yep. Very bad for the vast majority of people who don't currently pay any IHT but very good for the wealthiest in society. Not exactly great left wing policies and certainly not good for re-election prospects.
If they can make it work so that it frees up huge amounts of council tax to actually provide local services, on the other hand, then every Labour MP can point to the filled potholes, new buses, and clean town centres at the next election.
Figure out a way for councils to have enough money to fix all potholes and they'll win councils up and down the country for years. Even when a council is doing a very good job a pothole is taken as a visible sign that they are failing, perceptions would improve massively if the issue could be tackled.
Just to clarify: my understanding is that a Burnham proposes to scrap the current IHT and replace it with a flat 10% rate with far fewer exemptions.
So really not red meat for the left. Actually good news mainly for the well off.
Yep. Very bad for the vast majority of people who don't currently pay any IHT but very good for the wealthiest in society. Not exactly great left wing policies and certainly not good for re-election prospects.
If they can make it work so that it frees up huge amounts of council tax to actually provide local services, on the other hand, then every Labour MP can point to the filled potholes, new buses, and clean town centres at the next election.
Figure out a way for councils to have enough money to fix all potholes and they'll win councils up and down the country for years. Even when a council is doing a very good job a pothole is taken as a visible sign that they are failing, perceptions would improve massively if the issue could be tackled.
It is not potholes; it is 20 years of very poor maintenance.
So it is entire sections or lengths of carriageway which need to be resurfaced or reconstructed.
There is also the less talked about issue that any Tom, Dick or Sally seems to be able to dig up roads, and do shit repairs - it happens repeatedly in brand new sections. This is to do with LHAs having no resources to impose timetables, or having to work hand to mouth with no chance to plan, and no resources to force whoever to work to an acceptable standard.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
Just to clarify: my understanding is that a Burnham proposes to scrap the current IHT and replace it with a flat 10% rate with far fewer exemptions.
So really not red meat for the left. Actually good news mainly for the well off.
Yep. Very bad for the vast majority of people who don't currently pay any IHT but very good for the wealthiest in society. Not exactly great left wing policies and certainly not good for re-election prospects.
If they can make it work so that it frees up huge amounts of council tax to actually provide local services, on the other hand, then every Labour MP can point to the filled potholes, new buses, and clean town centres at the next election.
Figure out a way for councils to have enough money to fix all potholes and they'll win councils up and down the country for years. Even when a council is doing a very good job a pothole is taken as a visible sign that they are failing, perceptions would improve massively if the issue could be tackled.
Just to clarify: my understanding is that a Burnham proposes to scrap the current IHT and replace it with a flat 10% rate with far fewer exemptions.
So really not red meat for the left. Actually good news mainly for the well off.
Yep. Very bad for the vast majority of people who don't currently pay any IHT but very good for the wealthiest in society. Not exactly great left wing policies and certainly not good for re-election prospects.
If they can make it work so that it frees up huge amounts of council tax to actually provide local services, on the other hand, then every Labour MP can point to the filled potholes, new buses, and clean town centres at the next election.
Figure out a way for councils to have enough money to fix all potholes and they'll win councils up and down the country for years. Even when a council is doing a very good job a pothole is taken as a visible sign that they are failing, perceptions would improve massively if the issue could be tackled.
It is not potholes; it is 20 years of very poor maintenance.
So it is entire sections or lengths of carriageway which need to be resurfaced or reconstructed.
There is also the less talked about issue that any Tom, Dick or Sally seems to be able to dig up roads, and do shit repairs - it happens repeatedly in brand new sections. This is to do with LHAs having no resources to impose timetables, or having to work hand to mouth with no chance to plan, and no resources to force whoever to work to an acceptable standard.
I know it is more complicated than just 'fill in the holes', but the point standards that if it could be addressed, even if just papering over the cracks as it were, people would probably quickly have a better opinion of their council - quick and nasty repair which needs redoing would work even, if you got lucky and didn't need to redo the same bits too often.
SW News reports Bristol MP Darren Jones considering a Leadership bid
Sky reporting similar about Al Cairns.
I can't see Jones getting any left wing support.
I can see Cairns getting some left wing support
I just cannot see more than 20 or 30 left wingers trying this futile gesture
We've had months of inertia with Tory Leadership Elections.
We need Leadership from Burnham and Streeting.
The pathetic reactions of Farage and Badenoch really show how vital it is got the Country that the new Labour leaders take over promptly
I think the normal Labour party policies still stand. They need 81 MPs to support them or they are not allowed to stand. So really this will, at worst, cause a delay of a couple of weeks until nominations close.
They also need some unions to nominate as well iirc???
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
The problem is Westminster centralisation, and the assumption of it.
Land taxes like this work quite well in other countries, but are always devolved.
That way we get competition, innovation, and transparent trade offs.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
I can’t remember what @dixiedean said he was paying for council tax relative to the value of where he was living but I think it was well above 4%
SNP clown shoe of an MP doing the performative Sovereign People of Scotland bit again... utterly embarrassing
get up off your belly and grow a spine rather than be a London lickspittle
The Speaker should have told her to piss off and to come back when she has grown up. She was a year behind my daughter at school. A private school, naturally.
They don't like it up 'em David. The place is a cesspit of nomarks and losers.
It has been suggested Burnham will introduce a 10% IHT care levy on all estates
Seems a sensible suggestion but the entitled children of estates may kick and scream
Taxes on death are famously popular with voters.
A universal 10% inheritance tax would raise many billions more pounds than the current 40% inheritance tax, that most people with actual money do an awful lot to avoid.
Arthur Laffer was right.
You’re describing tax avoidance, not the Laffer effect. Common mistake.
Unless you’re suggesting rich people aren’t dying as a result of IHT?
I’m simply saying that a flat 10% tax raises more money than the current 40% arrangements, which mostly hit the middle-classes in the South East who have little more in assets than their own house.
The wealthy spend a lot of effort in setting up trusts and making early gifts to children, that simply wouldn’t occur under a 10% IHT regime.
I don’t disagree - but I think it’s important to distinguish when a tax is undermined by [removed out of sensitivity to TSE], in contrast to when it deters an activity that’s good for the wider economy.
I don’t care at all if the only asset is your £1 million house. It’s just a variation on people whining about being cash poor - sell it, buy a cottage in Yorkshire for £200k and you’ve got £800k left for the pub, yacht and robo-lawnmower.
they would have nose bleeds every day. Why should people have to sell their home to fund spongers who will not work , pretend to be ill and suck at the public teat all their lives. There lies the reason for the country being a shithole, spongers , ne'er do wells and bleeding heart champagne socialists
A lot of tax goes on the NHS, paying for people who really are ill. A lot of tax goes on pensions. A lot of tax goes on schools. The country is a shithole, if it is, because people want to believe that their tax money is being frittered away on spongers and ne’er do wells, when actually it’s mostly just being spent on us. The consequence of this is that people don’t want to pay more tax, secure in their fantasy that it’s someone else’s fault.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
amazingly a good idea from you , though spongers would still pay nothing or next to nothing
Just to clarify: my understanding is that a Burnham proposes to scrap the current IHT and replace it with a flat 10% rate with far fewer exemptions.
So really not red meat for the left. Actually good news mainly for the well off.
Yep. Very bad for the vast majority of people who don't currently pay any IHT but very good for the wealthiest in society. Not exactly great left wing policies and certainly not good for re-election prospects.
If they can make it work so that it frees up huge amounts of council tax to actually provide local services, on the other hand, then every Labour MP can point to the filled potholes, new buses, and clean town centres at the next election.
Figure out a way for councils to have enough money to fix all potholes and they'll win councils up and down the country for years. Even when a council is doing a very good job a pothole is taken as a visible sign that they are failing, perceptions would improve massively if the issue could be tackled.
7 years of council tax freezes in England, 9 years in Scotland and you wonder why councils have no money?
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
I can’t remember what @dixiedean said he was paying for council tax relative to the value of where he was living but I think it was well above 4%
Yes, because the cost of providing council services isn’t related to house prices nationally.
Any property tax to fund local services needs to be determined and collected locally.
Madness. Some hopeless loon turns up from the regions and is Jean d'Arc.
IIRC that's the way it works.
Indeed. Jean put a spoke into the Treaty of Troyes. So instead of the English Henry V, the French Dauphin became King. If she hadn't succeeded, the French would be speaking English but would most likely still be producing stinky cheese.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
Well, if it is about local services then the Millionaire in London is using no more of them than the Millionaire in Middlesborough (they do have them you know)
But more importantly this is a classic case of ideology trying to trump reality. In reality the only way you are going to see those house prices in London collapse to a point where people can affford the 1% a year LVT is if everyone leaves. So no schools, no services, no one working in the shops.
It is yet another example of infantile, simplistic ideology crashing headlong into real life.
Stanislaw Lem once wrote a great Sci-Fi short story - a veiled critique of Soviet Poland - about an absolute ruler who decided he wanted his people to adapt to an amphibious existence. He did it by raising the water level on the planet by 1cm every year in the belief that the people would adapt to the new environment. Of course they all just drowned.
Madness. Some hopeless loon turns up from the regions and is Jean d'Arc.
IIRC that's the way it works.
Indeed. Jean put a spoke into the Treaty of Troyes. So instead of the English Henry V, the French Dauphin became King. If she hadn't succeeded, the French would be speaking English but would most likely still be producing stinky cheese.
SW News reports Bristol MP Darren Jones considering a Leadership bid
Sky reporting similar about Al Cairns.
I can't see Jones getting any left wing support.
I can see Cairns getting some left wing support
I just cannot see more than 20 or 30 left wingers trying this futile gesture
We've had months of inertia with Tory Leadership Elections.
We need Leadership from Burnham and Streeting.
The pathetic reactions of Farage and Badenoch really show how vital it is got the Country that the new Labour leaders take over promptly
I think the normal Labour party policies still stand. They need 81 MPs to support them or they are not allowed to stand. So really this will, at worst, cause a delay of a couple of weeks until nominations close.
They also need some unions to nominate as well iirc???
Indeed but that is only after they have their 81 MPs. It is the second part of the process. A certain % of the unions or the constituencies.
It has been suggested Burnham will introduce a 10% IHT care levy on all estates
Seems a sensible suggestion but the entitled children of estates may kick and scream
Taxes on death are famously popular with voters.
A universal 10% inheritance tax would raise many billions more pounds than the current 40% inheritance tax, that most people with actual money do an awful lot to avoid.
Arthur Laffer was right.
You’re describing tax avoidance, not the Laffer effect. Common mistake.
Unless you’re suggesting rich people aren’t dying as a result of IHT?
I’m simply saying that a flat 10% tax raises more money than the current 40% arrangements, which mostly hit the middle-classes in the South East who have little more in assets than their own house.
The wealthy spend a lot of effort in setting up trusts and making early gifts to children, that simply wouldn’t occur under a 10% IHT regime.
I don’t disagree - but I think it’s important to distinguish when a tax is undermined by [removed out of sensitivity to TSE], in contrast to when it deters an activity that’s good for the wider economy.
I don’t care at all if the only asset is your £1 million house. It’s just a variation on people whining about being cash poor - sell it, buy a cottage in Yorkshire for £200k and you’ve got £800k left for the pub, yacht and robo-lawnmower.
they would have nose bleeds every day. Why should people have to sell their home to fund spongers who will not work , pretend to be ill and suck at the public teat all their lives. There lies the reason for the country being a shithole, spongers , ne'er do wells and bleeding heart champagne socialists
A lot of tax goes on the NHS, paying for people who really are ill. A lot of tax goes on pensions. A lot of tax goes on schools. The country is a shithole, if it is, because people want to believe that their tax money is being frittered away on spongers and ne’er do wells, when actually it’s mostly just being spent on us. The consequence of this is that people don’t want to pay more tax, secure in their fantasy that it’s someone else’s fault.
More than a lot goes on layabouts and chancers getting benefits for anxiety, piles, constipation and other such serious ailments. Not only can you dial a burger in the bankrupt UK you can dial the benefits menu and get money delivered
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
It has been suggested Burnham will introduce a 10% IHT care levy on all estates
Seems a sensible suggestion but the entitled children of estates may kick and scream
Taxes on death are famously popular with voters.
A universal 10% inheritance tax would raise many billions more pounds than the current 40% inheritance tax, that most people with actual money do an awful lot to avoid.
Arthur Laffer was right.
You’re describing tax avoidance, not the Laffer effect. Common mistake.
Unless you’re suggesting rich people aren’t dying as a result of IHT?
I’m simply saying that a flat 10% tax raises more money than the current 40% arrangements, which mostly hit the middle-classes in the South East who have little more in assets than their own house.
The wealthy spend a lot of effort in setting up trusts and making early gifts to children, that simply wouldn’t occur under a 10% IHT regime.
I don’t disagree - but I think it’s important to distinguish when a tax is undermined by [removed out of sensitivity to TSE], in contrast to when it deters an activity that’s good for the wider economy.
I don’t care at all if the only asset is your £1 million house. It’s just a variation on people whining about being cash poor - sell it, buy a cottage in Yorkshire for £200k and you’ve got £800k left for the pub, yacht and robo-lawnmower.
they would have nose bleeds every day. Why should people have to sell their home to fund spongers who will not work , pretend to be ill and suck at the public teat all their lives. There lies the reason for the country being a shithole, spongers , ne'er do wells and bleeding heart champagne socialists
A lot of tax goes on the NHS, paying for people who really are ill. A lot of tax goes on pensions. A lot of tax goes on schools. The country is a shithole, if it is, because people want to believe that their tax money is being frittered away on spongers and ne’er do wells, when actually it’s mostly just being spent on us. The consequence of this is that people don’t want to pay more tax, secure in their fantasy that it’s someone else’s fault.
More than a lot goes on layabouts and chancers getting benefits for anxiety, piles, constipation and other such serious ailments. Not only can you dial a burger in the bankrupt UK you can dial the benefits menu and get money delivered
Do you have any figures for that?
What percentage of PIP do these conditions amount against teh cost for all disability payments?
Or is it just another Wedge Issue, people who don't want to pay for others benefits being feed the scrounger line to justify that position. I am all for cutting fraud, but much like US elections, cutting benefits because you think theirs fraud is at best poor policy and at worse just self serving nonsense.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
Well, if it is about local services then the Millionaire in London is using no more of them than the Millionaire in Middlesborough (they do have them you know)
But more importantly this is a classic case of ideology trying to trump reality. In reality the only way you are going to see those house prices in London collapse to a point where people can affford the 1% a year LVT is if everyone leaves. So no schools, no services, no one working in the shops.
It is yet another example of infantile, simplistic ideology crashing headlong into real life.
Stanislaw Lem once wrote a great Sci-Fi short story - a veiled critique of Soviet Poland - about an absolute ruler who decided he wanted his people to adapt to an amphibious existence. He did it by raising the water level on the planet by 1cm every year in the belief that the people would adapt to the new environment. Of course they all just drowned.
London has incredibly low property tax and massive public transport/cycling investment.
Mysteriously has brilliant GDP per capita and madly high property prices.
Just to clarify: my understanding is that a Burnham proposes to scrap the current IHT and replace it with a flat 10% rate with far fewer exemptions.
So really not red meat for the left. Actually good news mainly for the well off.
Yep. Very bad for the vast majority of people who don't currently pay any IHT but very good for the wealthiest in society. Not exactly great left wing policies and certainly not good for re-election prospects.
If they can make it work so that it frees up huge amounts of council tax to actually provide local services, on the other hand, then every Labour MP can point to the filled potholes, new buses, and clean town centres at the next election.
Figure out a way for councils to have enough money to fix all potholes and they'll win councils up and down the country for years. Even when a council is doing a very good job a pothole is taken as a visible sign that they are failing, perceptions would improve massively if the issue could be tackled.
7 years of council tax freezes in England, 9 years in Scotland and you wonder why councils have no money?
We've had 10% then 5% rises in the last 2 years, with another 5% rise locked in for next year.
And they can't even empty the bins on the right day half the time.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
Plunging younger people, who bought their homes in the last couple of decades, into negative equity would be popular, I’m sure.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
Plunging younger people, who bought their homes in the last couple of decades, into negative equity would be popular, I’m sure.
A lot of other people (renters) would be very happy that they could see the possibility of getting on to the housing ladder.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
Well, if it is about local services then the Millionaire in London is using no more of them than the Millionaire in Middlesborough (they do have them you know)
But more importantly this is a classic case of ideology trying to trump reality. In reality the only way you are going to see those house prices in London collapse to a point where people can affford the 1% a year LVT is if everyone leaves. So no schools, no services, no one working in the shops.
It is yet another example of infantile, simplistic ideology crashing headlong into real life.
Stanislaw Lem once wrote a great Sci-Fi short story - a veiled critique of Soviet Poland - about an absolute ruler who decided he wanted his people to adapt to an amphibious existence. He did it by raising the water level on the planet by 1cm every year in the belief that the people would adapt to the new environment. Of course they all just drowned.
London has incredibly low property tax and massive public transport/cycling investment.
Mysteriously has brilliant GDP per capita and madly high property prices.
I wonder why the financial capital of Europe and one of the top two in the world with thousands of very well paid jobs and a huge service industry attached would have a higher GDP per capita than the rest of the country. Must be the property taxes and public transport.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
I can’t remember what @dixiedean said he was paying for council tax relative to the value of where he was living but I think it was well above 4%
I’m less than 1% and I’ve a nice detached in N Durham
It has been suggested Burnham will introduce a 10% IHT care levy on all estates
Seems a sensible suggestion but the entitled children of estates may kick and scream
Taxes on death are famously popular with voters.
A universal 10% inheritance tax would raise many billions more pounds than the current 40% inheritance tax, that most people with actual money do an awful lot to avoid.
Arthur Laffer was right.
You’re describing tax avoidance, not the Laffer effect. Common mistake.
Unless you’re suggesting rich people aren’t dying as a result of IHT?
I’m simply saying that a flat 10% tax raises more money than the current 40% arrangements, which mostly hit the middle-classes in the South East who have little more in assets than their own house.
The wealthy spend a lot of effort in setting up trusts and making early gifts to children, that simply wouldn’t occur under a 10% IHT regime.
I don’t disagree - but I think it’s important to distinguish when a tax is undermined by [removed out of sensitivity to TSE], in contrast to when it deters an activity that’s good for the wider economy.
I don’t care at all if the only asset is your £1 million house. It’s just a variation on people whining about being cash poor - sell it, buy a cottage in Yorkshire for £200k and you’ve got £800k left for the pub, yacht and robo-lawnmower.
they would have nose bleeds every day. Why should people have to sell their home to fund spongers who will not work , pretend to be ill and suck at the public teat all their lives. There lies the reason for the country being a shithole, spongers , ne'er do wells and bleeding heart champagne socialists
A lot of tax goes on the NHS, paying for people who really are ill. A lot of tax goes on pensions. A lot of tax goes on schools. The country is a shithole, if it is, because people want to believe that their tax money is being frittered away on spongers and ne’er do wells, when actually it’s mostly just being spent on us. The consequence of this is that people don’t want to pay more tax, secure in their fantasy that it’s someone else’s fault.
More than a lot goes on layabouts and chancers getting benefits for anxiety, piles, constipation and other such serious ailments. Not only can you dial a burger in the bankrupt UK you can dial the benefits menu and get money delivered
Do you have any figures for that?
What percentage of PIP do these conditions amount against teh cost for all disability payments?
Or is it just another Wedge Issue, people who don't want to pay for others benefits being feed the scrounger line to justify that position. I am all for cutting fraud, but much like US elections, cutting benefits because you think theirs fraud is at best poor policy and at worse just self serving nonsense.
Peter.
Does he have any figures for that? Of course he doesn't.
Why would Malc let actual facts get in the way of his prejudices?
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
I can’t remember what @dixiedean said he was paying for council tax relative to the value of where he was living but I think it was well above 4%
I’m less than 1% and I’ve a nice detached in N Durham
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
Plunging younger people, who bought their homes in the last couple of decades, into negative equity would be popular, I’m sure.
Those who propose radical tax changes always seem to forget that tax policy doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
I can’t remember what @dixiedean said he was paying for council tax relative to the value of where he was living but I think it was well above 4%
Yes, because the cost of providing council services isn’t related to house prices nationally.
Any property tax to fund local services needs to be determined and collected locally.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Also not a tax as you can pay it off entirely....
You have absolutely no idea. The old and the rich sneer about student loans and “entitled graduates” whilst themselves also supporting the lowering of taxes that conveniently benefit themselves.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Also not a tax as you can pay it off entirely....
You have absolutely no idea
I paid mine off mate; scrimped and saved and grew a business, and then paid it off.
It has been suggested Burnham will introduce a 10% IHT care levy on all estates
Seems a sensible suggestion but the entitled children of estates may kick and scream
Taxes on death are famously popular with voters.
A universal 10% inheritance tax would raise many billions more pounds than the current 40% inheritance tax, that most people with actual money do an awful lot to avoid.
Arthur Laffer was right.
You’re describing tax avoidance, not the Laffer effect. Common mistake.
Unless you’re suggesting rich people aren’t dying as a result of IHT?
I’m simply saying that a flat 10% tax raises more money than the current 40% arrangements, which mostly hit the middle-classes in the South East who have little more in assets than their own house.
The wealthy spend a lot of effort in setting up trusts and making early gifts to children, that simply wouldn’t occur under a 10% IHT regime.
I don’t disagree - but I think it’s important to distinguish when a tax is undermined by [removed out of sensitivity to TSE], in contrast to when it deters an activity that’s good for the wider economy.
I don’t care at all if the only asset is your £1 million house. It’s just a variation on people whining about being cash poor - sell it, buy a cottage in Yorkshire for £200k and you’ve got £800k left for the pub, yacht and robo-lawnmower.
they would have nose bleeds every day. Why should people have to sell their home to fund spongers who will not work , pretend to be ill and suck at the public teat all their lives. There lies the reason for the country being a shithole, spongers , ne'er do wells and bleeding heart champagne socialists
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
Well, if it is about local services then the Millionaire in London is using no more of them than the Millionaire in Middlesborough (they do have them you know)
But more importantly this is a classic case of ideology trying to trump reality. In reality the only way you are going to see those house prices in London collapse to a point where people can affford the 1% a year LVT is if everyone leaves. So no schools, no services, no one working in the shops.
It is yet another example of infantile, simplistic ideology crashing headlong into real life.
Stanislaw Lem once wrote a great Sci-Fi short story - a veiled critique of Soviet Poland - about an absolute ruler who decided he wanted his people to adapt to an amphibious existence. He did it by raising the water level on the planet by 1cm every year in the belief that the people would adapt to the new environment. Of course they all just drowned.
London has incredibly low property tax and massive public transport/cycling investment.
Mysteriously has brilliant GDP per capita and madly high property prices.
The problem is that whilst many do benefit from the extremely good wages and property values, the hundreds of thousands of people they rely on to keep the place actually running do not. And the proposal is to tax them out of existence.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Also not a tax as you can pay it off entirely....
You have absolutely no idea
I paid mine off mate; scrimped and saved and grew a business, and then paid it off.
It has been suggested Burnham will introduce a 10% IHT care levy on all estates
Seems a sensible suggestion but the entitled children of estates may kick and scream
Taxes on death are famously popular with voters.
A universal 10% inheritance tax would raise many billions more pounds than the current 40% inheritance tax, that most people with actual money do an awful lot to avoid.
Arthur Laffer was right.
You’re describing tax avoidance, not the Laffer effect. Common mistake.
Unless you’re suggesting rich people aren’t dying as a result of IHT?
Aren't you both possibly labouring under the misapprehension that the 10% wouldn't be in addition to the existing 40% rate?
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Also not a tax as you can pay it off entirely....
You have absolutely no idea
I paid mine off mate; scrimped and saved and grew a business, and then paid it off.
Classic “i’m alright chuck”
/ Err, you said 'so what' to objections to a policy that only helps those who went to uni, who havn't paid off their lones. Like you, perchance
It has been suggested Burnham will introduce a 10% IHT care levy on all estates
Seems a sensible suggestion but the entitled children of estates may kick and scream
Taxes on death are famously popular with voters.
A universal 10% inheritance tax would raise many billions more pounds than the current 40% inheritance tax, that most people with actual money do an awful lot to avoid.
Arthur Laffer was right.
You’re describing tax avoidance, not the Laffer effect. Common mistake.
Unless you’re suggesting rich people aren’t dying as a result of IHT?
Can you not use pejorative terms like 'tax avoidance' and use the neutral term 'tax minimisation strategies.'
If you implement a one week moratorium on links to the Telegraph we have a deal. The 0.01ppt movement in borrowing costs histrionics earlier today (and posted by some gullible PBer) was just ridiculous.
The Telegraph produces great comedy, who can forget the cyclist doing 50mph.
I've done 52 mph on a cycle no problem. You just need a high enough hill.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
Well, if it is about local services then the Millionaire in London is using no more of them than the Millionaire in Middlesborough (they do have them you know)
But more importantly this is a classic case of ideology trying to trump reality. In reality the only way you are going to see those house prices in London collapse to a point where people can affford the 1% a year LVT is if everyone leaves. So no schools, no services, no one working in the shops.
It is yet another example of infantile, simplistic ideology crashing headlong into real life.
Stanislaw Lem once wrote a great Sci-Fi short story - a veiled critique of Soviet Poland - about an absolute ruler who decided he wanted his people to adapt to an amphibious existence. He did it by raising the water level on the planet by 1cm every year in the belief that the people would adapt to the new environment. Of course they all just drowned.
London has incredibly low property tax and massive public transport/cycling investment.
Mysteriously has brilliant GDP per capita and madly high property prices.
I wonder why the financial capital of Europe and one of the top two in the world with thousands of very well paid jobs and a huge service industry attached would have a higher GDP per capita than the rest of the country. Must be the property taxes and public transport.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Also not a tax as you can pay it off entirely....
You have absolutely no idea
I paid mine off mate; scrimped and saved and grew a business, and then paid it off.
Classic “i’m alright chuck”
/ Err, you said 'so what' to objections to a policy that only helps those who went to uni, who havn't paid off their lones. Like you, perchance
So what? Subsidies on farming only helps farmers. Loads of policy changes only help certain groups.
People whinge about high taxes hurting growth well I pay a lot of money every month in student loans repayments and I will have to continue to do so well into my 40s and I don’t even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
Well, if it is about local services then the Millionaire in London is using no more of them than the Millionaire in Middlesborough (they do have them you know)
But more importantly this is a classic case of ideology trying to trump reality. In reality the only way you are going to see those house prices in London collapse to a point where people can affford the 1% a year LVT is if everyone leaves. So no schools, no services, no one working in the shops.
It is yet another example of infantile, simplistic ideology crashing headlong into real life.
Stanislaw Lem once wrote a great Sci-Fi short story - a veiled critique of Soviet Poland - about an absolute ruler who decided he wanted his people to adapt to an amphibious existence. He did it by raising the water level on the planet by 1cm every year in the belief that the people would adapt to the new environment. Of course they all just drowned.
London has incredibly low property tax and massive public transport/cycling investment.
London's property taxes are extremely high. People pay fortunes in stamp duty when they buy. London contributes disproportionately in just about every form of taxation, and subsidises the rest of the country hugely. What it gets back in transport spending is spare change in comparison.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Also not a tax as you can pay it off entirely....
You have absolutely no idea
I paid mine off mate; scrimped and saved and grew a business, and then paid it off.
Classic “i’m alright chuck”
/ Err, you said 'so what' to objections to a policy that only helps those who went to uni, who havn't paid off their lones. Like you, perchance
So what? Subsidies on farming only helps farmers. Loads of policy changes only help certain groups.
People whinge about high taxes hurting growth well I pay a lot of money every month in student loans repayments and I will have to continue to do so well into my 40s and I don’t even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
If you're comfortable with the hypocrisy of suggesting I was being biased, then fine.
My feeling is that people who take out loans should make best endeavours to repay them...
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
Well, if it is about local services then the Millionaire in London is using no more of them than the Millionaire in Middlesborough (they do have them you know)
But more importantly this is a classic case of ideology trying to trump reality. In reality the only way you are going to see those house prices in London collapse to a point where people can affford the 1% a year LVT is if everyone leaves. So no schools, no services, no one working in the shops.
It is yet another example of infantile, simplistic ideology crashing headlong into real life.
Stanislaw Lem once wrote a great Sci-Fi short story - a veiled critique of Soviet Poland - about an absolute ruler who decided he wanted his people to adapt to an amphibious existence. He did it by raising the water level on the planet by 1cm every year in the belief that the people would adapt to the new environment. Of course they all just drowned.
London has incredibly low property tax and massive public transport/cycling investment.
London's property taxes are extremely high. People pay fortunes in stamp duty when they buy. London contributes disproportionately in just about every form of taxation, and subsidises the rest of the country hugely. What it gets back in transport spending is spare change in comparison.
As soon as people start talking about CT as a percentage of property value, I know they have a massive axe to grind....
How do I know this? Because literally no one in the real world talks about their council tax like that.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Also not a tax as you can pay it off entirely....
You have absolutely no idea
I paid mine off mate; scrimped and saved and grew a business, and then paid it off.
Classic “i’m alright chuck”
/ Err, you said 'so what' to objections to a policy that only helps those who went to uni, who havn't paid off their lones. Like you, perchance
So what? Subsidies on farming only helps farmers. Loads of policy changes only help certain groups.
People whinge about high taxes hurting growth well I pay a lot of money every month in student loans repayments and I will have to continue to do so well into my 40s and I don’t even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
If you're comfortable with the hypocrisy of suggesting I was being biased, then fine.
My feeling is that people who take out loans should make best endeavours to repay them...
They're forgiven eventually anyway....
Yeah, and that's fine, but they are still a significant tax burden on our working population which apparently we need to alleviate if we want growth. Like I said, I don't even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
The sneering from those who have paid them off and those who didn't have to pay fees if they wanted to go to university really annoys me. It's not like it was really a well informed choice. A whole generation of people, including myself, were simply told that the only way to success was to go to university and the loans would be nothing and not matter. That was a lie.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Also not a tax as you can pay it off entirely....
You have absolutely no idea
I paid mine off mate; scrimped and saved and grew a business, and then paid it off.
Classic “i’m alright chuck”
/ Err, you said 'so what' to objections to a policy that only helps those who went to uni, who havn't paid off their lones. Like you, perchance
So what? Subsidies on farming only helps farmers. Loads of policy changes only help certain groups.
People whinge about high taxes hurting growth well I pay a lot of money every month in student loans repayments and I will have to continue to do so well into my 40s and I don’t even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
If you're comfortable with the hypocrisy of suggesting I was being biased, then fine.
My feeling is that people who take out loans should make best endeavours to repay them...
They're forgiven eventually anyway....
Yeah, and that's fine, but they are still a significant tax burden on our working population which apparently we need to alleviate if we want growth. Like I said, I don't even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
The sneering from those who have paid them off and those who didn't have to pay fees if they wanted to go to university really annoys me. It's not like it was really a well informed choice. A whole generation of people, including myself, were simply told that the only way to success was to go to university and the loans would be nothing and not matter. That was a lie.
It wasn't sneering, it was demonstrating that it isn't a tax. Because you can pay it back.
Your experience isn't the only one.
It would be fairer to all young people to cut NI for the under 30s, IMO, because that doesn't penalise those who didn't go to Uni.....
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Also not a tax as you can pay it off entirely....
You have absolutely no idea
I paid mine off mate; scrimped and saved and grew a business, and then paid it off.
Classic “i’m alright chuck”
/ Err, you said 'so what' to objections to a policy that only helps those who went to uni, who havn't paid off their lones. Like you, perchance
So what? Subsidies on farming only helps farmers. Loads of policy changes only help certain groups.
People whinge about high taxes hurting growth well I pay a lot of money every month in student loans repayments and I will have to continue to do so well into my 40s and I don’t even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
If you're comfortable with the hypocrisy of suggesting I was being biased, then fine.
My feeling is that people who take out loans should make best endeavours to repay them...
They're forgiven eventually anyway....
Yeah, and that's fine, but they are still a significant tax burden on our working population which apparently we need to alleviate if we want growth. Like I said, I don't even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
The sneering from those who have paid them off and those who didn't have to pay fees if they wanted to go to university really annoys me. It's not like it was really a well informed choice. A whole generation of people, including myself, were simply told that the only way to success was to go to university and the loans would be nothing and not matter. That was a lie.
It wasn't sneering, it was demonstrating that it isn't a tax. Because you can pay it back.
Your experience isn't the only one.
It would be fairer to all young people to cut NI for the under 30s, IMO, because that doesn't penalise those who didn't go to Uni.....
Those who didn't go to uni don't pay student loans so they are not penalised. What a ridiculous statement.
And you can pay it back, if you are rich or successful, but a lot of people can't. The outcome is the same as a tax for most people.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Also not a tax as you can pay it off entirely....
You have absolutely no idea
I paid mine off mate; scrimped and saved and grew a business, and then paid it off.
Classic “i’m alright chuck”
/ Err, you said 'so what' to objections to a policy that only helps those who went to uni, who havn't paid off their lones. Like you, perchance
So what? Subsidies on farming only helps farmers. Loads of policy changes only help certain groups.
People whinge about high taxes hurting growth well I pay a lot of money every month in student loans repayments and I will have to continue to do so well into my 40s and I don’t even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
If you're comfortable with the hypocrisy of suggesting I was being biased, then fine.
My feeling is that people who take out loans should make best endeavours to repay them...
They're forgiven eventually anyway....
Yeah, and that's fine, but they are still a significant tax burden on our working population which apparently we need to alleviate if we want growth. Like I said, I don't even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
The sneering from those who have paid them off and those who didn't have to pay fees if they wanted to go to university really annoys me. It's not like it was really a well informed choice. A whole generation of people, including myself, were simply told that the only way to success was to go to university and the loans would be nothing and not matter. That was a lie.
It wasn't sneering, it was demonstrating that it isn't a tax. Because you can pay it back.
Your experience isn't the only one.
It would be fairer to all young people to cut NI for the under 30s, IMO, because that doesn't penalise those who didn't go to Uni.....
Those who didn't go to uni don't pay student loans so they are not penalised. What a ridiculous statement.
And you can pay it back, if you are rich or successful, but a lot of people can't. The outcome is the same as a tax for most people.
A massive bung to the better educated bloc (because, as you have pretty much suggested, they weren't able to make the distinction between cost and value, or understand the significance of the borrowing), with no similar bung to those without student loans who have probably been paying tax for longer. If you can't see how that ie penalising the latter group, well I can't help you.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Also not a tax as you can pay it off entirely....
You have absolutely no idea
I paid mine off mate; scrimped and saved and grew a business, and then paid it off.
Classic “i’m alright chuck”
/ Err, you said 'so what' to objections to a policy that only helps those who went to uni, who havn't paid off their lones. Like you, perchance
So what? Subsidies on farming only helps farmers. Loads of policy changes only help certain groups.
People whinge about high taxes hurting growth well I pay a lot of money every month in student loans repayments and I will have to continue to do so well into my 40s and I don’t even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
If you're comfortable with the hypocrisy of suggesting I was being biased, then fine.
My feeling is that people who take out loans should make best endeavours to repay them...
They're forgiven eventually anyway....
Yeah, and that's fine, but they are still a significant tax burden on our working population which apparently we need to alleviate if we want growth. Like I said, I don't even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
The sneering from those who have paid them off and those who didn't have to pay fees if they wanted to go to university really annoys me. It's not like it was really a well informed choice. A whole generation of people, including myself, were simply told that the only way to success was to go to university and the loans would be nothing and not matter. That was a lie.
It wasn't sneering, it was demonstrating that it isn't a tax. Because you can pay it back.
Your experience isn't the only one.
It would be fairer to all young people to cut NI for the under 30s, IMO, because that doesn't penalise those who didn't go to Uni.....
Those who didn't go to uni don't pay student loans so they are not penalised. What a ridiculous statement.
And you can pay it back, if you are rich or successful, but a lot of people can't. The outcome is the same as a tax for most people.
A massive bung to the better educated bloc (because, as you have pretty much suggested, they weren't able to make the distinction between cost and value, or understand the significance of the borrowing), with no similar bung to those without student loans who have probably been paying tax for longer. If you can't see how that ie penalising the latter group, well I can't help you.
And there you are, sneering again. I understood the distinction between cost and value, you stupid pleb. You and your like deserve it.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
Well, if it is about local services then the Millionaire in London is using no more of them than the Millionaire in Middlesborough (they do have them you know)
But more importantly this is a classic case of ideology trying to trump reality. In reality the only way you are going to see those house prices in London collapse to a point where people can affford the 1% a year LVT is if everyone leaves. So no schools, no services, no one working in the shops.
It is yet another example of infantile, simplistic ideology crashing headlong into real life.
Stanislaw Lem once wrote a great Sci-Fi short story - a veiled critique of Soviet Poland - about an absolute ruler who decided he wanted his people to adapt to an amphibious existence. He did it by raising the water level on the planet by 1cm every year in the belief that the people would adapt to the new environment. Of course they all just drowned.
London has incredibly low property tax and massive public transport/cycling investment.
London's property taxes are extremely high. People pay fortunes in stamp duty when they buy. London contributes disproportionately in just about every form of taxation, and subsidises the rest of the country hugely. What it gets back in transport spending is spare change in comparison.
As soon as people start talking about CT as a percentage of property value, I know they have a massive axe to grind....
How do I know this? Because literally no one in the real world talks about their council tax like that.
So, you agree that high taxes are so beneficial that London is so prosperous that it can subsidise the rest of the country.
Well, I'd like to, but its an almost impossible task.
Can you start by telling us what's not embarrassing?
Well mostly I meant that we find ourselves in a sort of cornflake contest while the nation and the national debt swings in the wind.
It's just terrible. We don't have a government, but rather a comedy show. Louise Haigh is swanning around seeing who'd like to put their names into the hat for ministerial posts. I can't really imagine anything worse.
She’s the convicted fraudster, right? Seems a perfect fit for the new government
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Also not a tax as you can pay it off entirely....
You have absolutely no idea
I paid mine off mate; scrimped and saved and grew a business, and then paid it off.
Classic “i’m alright chuck”
/ Err, you said 'so what' to objections to a policy that only helps those who went to uni, who havn't paid off their lones. Like you, perchance
So what? Subsidies on farming only helps farmers. Loads of policy changes only help certain groups.
People whinge about high taxes hurting growth well I pay a lot of money every month in student loans repayments and I will have to continue to do so well into my 40s and I don’t even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
If you're comfortable with the hypocrisy of suggesting I was being biased, then fine.
My feeling is that people who take out loans should make best endeavours to repay them...
They're forgiven eventually anyway....
Yeah, and that's fine, but they are still a significant tax burden on our working population which apparently we need to alleviate if we want growth. Like I said, I don't even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
The sneering from those who have paid them off and those who didn't have to pay fees if they wanted to go to university really annoys me. It's not like it was really a well informed choice. A whole generation of people, including myself, were simply told that the only way to success was to go to university and the loans would be nothing and not matter. That was a lie.
It wasn't sneering, it was demonstrating that it isn't a tax. Because you can pay it back.
Your experience isn't the only one.
It would be fairer to all young people to cut NI for the under 30s, IMO, because that doesn't penalise those who didn't go to Uni.....
Those who didn't go to uni don't pay student loans so they are not penalised. What a ridiculous statement.
And you can pay it back, if you are rich or successful, but a lot of people can't. The outcome is the same as a tax for most people.
A massive bung to the better educated bloc (because, as you have pretty much suggested, they weren't able to make the distinction between cost and value, or understand the significance of the borrowing), with no similar bung to those without student loans who have probably been paying tax for longer. If you can't see how that ie penalising the latter group, well I can't help you.
And there you are, sneering again. I understood the distinction between cost and value, you stupid pleb. You and your like deserve it.
Err, no, thats your inference entirely. Though I note that you didn't engage with the substantive point, that it would benefit you more than those (as with most in my family) who didn't go to Uni.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Also not a tax as you can pay it off entirely....
You have absolutely no idea
I paid mine off mate; scrimped and saved and grew a business, and then paid it off.
Classic “i’m alright chuck”
/ Err, you said 'so what' to objections to a policy that only helps those who went to uni, who havn't paid off their lones. Like you, perchance
So what? Subsidies on farming only helps farmers. Loads of policy changes only help certain groups.
People whinge about high taxes hurting growth well I pay a lot of money every month in student loans repayments and I will have to continue to do so well into my 40s and I don’t even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
If you're comfortable with the hypocrisy of suggesting I was being biased, then fine.
My feeling is that people who take out loans should make best endeavours to repay them...
They're forgiven eventually anyway....
Yeah, and that's fine, but they are still a significant tax burden on our working population which apparently we need to alleviate if we want growth. Like I said, I don't even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
The sneering from those who have paid them off and those who didn't have to pay fees if they wanted to go to university really annoys me. It's not like it was really a well informed choice. A whole generation of people, including myself, were simply told that the only way to success was to go to university and the loans would be nothing and not matter. That was a lie.
It wasn't sneering, it was demonstrating that it isn't a tax. Because you can pay it back.
Your experience isn't the only one.
It would be fairer to all young people to cut NI for the under 30s, IMO, because that doesn't penalise those who didn't go to Uni.....
Those who didn't go to uni don't pay student loans so they are not penalised. What a ridiculous statement.
And you can pay it back, if you are rich or successful, but a lot of people can't. The outcome is the same as a tax for most people.
A massive bung to the better educated bloc (because, as you have pretty much suggested, they weren't able to make the distinction between cost and value, or understand the significance of the borrowing), with no similar bung to those without student loans who have probably been paying tax for longer. If you can't see how that ie penalising the latter group, well I can't help you.
And there you are, sneering again. I understood the distinction between cost and value, you stupid pleb. You and your like deserve it.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Also not a tax as you can pay it off entirely....
You have absolutely no idea
I paid mine off mate; scrimped and saved and grew a business, and then paid it off.
Classic “i’m alright chuck”
/ Err, you said 'so what' to objections to a policy that only helps those who went to uni, who havn't paid off their lones. Like you, perchance
So what? Subsidies on farming only helps farmers. Loads of policy changes only help certain groups.
People whinge about high taxes hurting growth well I pay a lot of money every month in student loans repayments and I will have to continue to do so well into my 40s and I don’t even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
If you're comfortable with the hypocrisy of suggesting I was being biased, then fine.
My feeling is that people who take out loans should make best endeavours to repay them...
They're forgiven eventually anyway....
Yeah, and that's fine, but they are still a significant tax burden on our working population which apparently we need to alleviate if we want growth. Like I said, I don't even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
The sneering from those who have paid them off and those who didn't have to pay fees if they wanted to go to university really annoys me. It's not like it was really a well informed choice. A whole generation of people, including myself, were simply told that the only way to success was to go to university and the loans would be nothing and not matter. That was a lie.
It wasn't sneering, it was demonstrating that it isn't a tax. Because you can pay it back.
Your experience isn't the only one.
It would be fairer to all young people to cut NI for the under 30s, IMO, because that doesn't penalise those who didn't go to Uni.....
Those who didn't go to uni don't pay student loans so they are not penalised. What a ridiculous statement.
And you can pay it back, if you are rich or successful, but a lot of people can't. The outcome is the same as a tax for most people.
A massive bung to the better educated bloc (because, as you have pretty much suggested, they weren't able to make the distinction between cost and value, or understand the significance of the borrowing), with no similar bung to those without student loans who have probably been paying tax for longer. If you can't see how that ie penalising the latter group, well I can't help you.
And there you are, sneering again. I understood the distinction between cost and value, you stupid pleb. You and your like deserve it.
Err, no, thats your inference entirely. Though I note that you didn't engage with the substantive point, that it would benefit you more than those (as with most in my family) who didn't go to Uni.
This particular policy would benefit me more, yes. I don't have kids, so any policy that benefits parents in your world is a bung to parents that penalises me, which is of course ridiculous.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
How about 0.3% up to a maximum of £3,000 for the first million of property value and 0.5% for anything over £1m.
(Thresholds chosen for political impact so don’t know whether the numbers work)
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Also not a tax as you can pay it off entirely....
You have absolutely no idea
I paid mine off mate; scrimped and saved and grew a business, and then paid it off.
Classic “i’m alright chuck”
/ Err, you said 'so what' to objections to a policy that only helps those who went to uni, who havn't paid off their lones. Like you, perchance
So what? Subsidies on farming only helps farmers. Loads of policy changes only help certain groups.
People whinge about high taxes hurting growth well I pay a lot of money every month in student loans repayments and I will have to continue to do so well into my 40s and I don’t even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
If you're comfortable with the hypocrisy of suggesting I was being biased, then fine.
My feeling is that people who take out loans should make best endeavours to repay them...
They're forgiven eventually anyway....
Yeah, and that's fine, but they are still a significant tax burden on our working population which apparently we need to alleviate if we want growth. Like I said, I don't even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
The sneering from those who have paid them off and those who didn't have to pay fees if they wanted to go to university really annoys me. It's not like it was really a well informed choice. A whole generation of people, including myself, were simply told that the only way to success was to go to university and the loans would be nothing and not matter. That was a lie.
It wasn't sneering, it was demonstrating that it isn't a tax. Because you can pay it back.
Your experience isn't the only one.
It would be fairer to all young people to cut NI for the under 30s, IMO, because that doesn't penalise those who didn't go to Uni.....
Those who didn't go to uni don't pay student loans so they are not penalised. What a ridiculous statement.
And you can pay it back, if you are rich or successful, but a lot of people can't. The outcome is the same as a tax for most people.
A massive bung to the better educated bloc (because, as you have pretty much suggested, they weren't able to make the distinction between cost and value, or understand the significance of the borrowing), with no similar bung to those without student loans who have probably been paying tax for longer. If you can't see how that ie penalising the latter group, well I can't help you.
And there you are, sneering again. I understood the distinction between cost and value, you stupid pleb. You and your like deserve it.
Err, no, thats your inference entirely. Though I note that you didn't engage with the substantive point, that it would benefit you more than those (as with most in my family) who didn't go to Uni.
This particular policy would benefit me more, yes. I don't have kids, so any policy that benefits parents in your world is a bung to parents that penalises me, which is of course ridiculous.
The fundamental difference, being, of course, that you might at some point have children - but a one time paying off of historic loans (entered into with eyes open) wouldn't be the same kettle of fish now, would it?
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.
To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.
An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.
And/or forgive student loans
lol.
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
You can lol all you want but as it is essentially a tax, if you want to lift the negative equity burden of the young in such a scenario that would be one way to do it.
Also not a tax as you can pay it off entirely....
You have absolutely no idea
I paid mine off mate; scrimped and saved and grew a business, and then paid it off.
Classic “i’m alright chuck”
/ Err, you said 'so what' to objections to a policy that only helps those who went to uni, who havn't paid off their lones. Like you, perchance
So what? Subsidies on farming only helps farmers. Loads of policy changes only help certain groups.
People whinge about high taxes hurting growth well I pay a lot of money every month in student loans repayments and I will have to continue to do so well into my 40s and I don’t even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
If you're comfortable with the hypocrisy of suggesting I was being biased, then fine.
My feeling is that people who take out loans should make best endeavours to repay them...
They're forgiven eventually anyway....
Yeah, and that's fine, but they are still a significant tax burden on our working population which apparently we need to alleviate if we want growth. Like I said, I don't even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
The sneering from those who have paid them off and those who didn't have to pay fees if they wanted to go to university really annoys me. It's not like it was really a well informed choice. A whole generation of people, including myself, were simply told that the only way to success was to go to university and the loans would be nothing and not matter. That was a lie.
It wasn't sneering, it was demonstrating that it isn't a tax. Because you can pay it back.
Your experience isn't the only one.
It would be fairer to all young people to cut NI for the under 30s, IMO, because that doesn't penalise those who didn't go to Uni.....
Those who didn't go to uni don't pay student loans so they are not penalised. What a ridiculous statement.
And you can pay it back, if you are rich or successful, but a lot of people can't. The outcome is the same as a tax for most people.
A massive bung to the better educated bloc (because, as you have pretty much suggested, they weren't able to make the distinction between cost and value, or understand the significance of the borrowing), with no similar bung to those without student loans who have probably been paying tax for longer. If you can't see how that ie penalising the latter group, well I can't help you.
And there you are, sneering again. I understood the distinction between cost and value, you stupid pleb. You and your like deserve it.
Err, no, thats your inference entirely. Though I note that you didn't engage with the substantive point, that it would benefit you more than those (as with most in my family) who didn't go to Uni.
This particular policy would benefit me more, yes. I don't have kids, so any policy that benefits parents in your world is a bung to parents that penalises me, which is of course ridiculous.
The fundamental difference, being, of course, that you might at some point have children - but a one time paying off of historic loans (entered into with eyes open) wouldn't be the same kettle of fish now, would it?
I'm not prepared to continue this debate with you any longer because of your sneering and condescending attitude. You don't understand because you've done alright. Everyone else who went to university should be penalised for their entire working life because they should have known better at 17 years old, just like you. If only we all had been as clever as you.
Comments
It's just terrible. We don't have a government, but rather a comedy show. Louise Haigh is swanning around seeing who'd like to put their names into the hat for ministerial posts. I can't really imagine anything worse.
Neither labour or the country want a 3 month hustings
I know Starmer loyalists are sore but this is not about them
He saw it as a simple analogue to the abolition of lone parent benefit that Blair imposed early in his government, having no understanding of politics beyond that sort of simplistic paint-by-numbers approach.
Kind of like how all footballers fake injuries, so no teams really complain about it despite it being blatant cheating.
Sky reporting similar about Al Cairns.
I can't see Jones getting any left wing support.
I can see Cairns getting some left wing support
I just cannot see more than 20 or 30 left wingers trying this futile gesture
We've had months of inertia with Tory Leadership Elections.
We need Leadership from Burnham and Streeting.
The pathetic reactions of Farage and Badenoch really show how vital it is got the Country that the new Labour leaders take over promptly
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
Parking in Camden used to be like that in the noughties; there were particular bits and pieces of places where for strange or historical reasons they could not enforce. I seem to recall one around Lissenden Gardens / Glenhurst Avenue close to Parliament Hill. I also recall it was sorted somehow.
My favourite one now, that I have never done, would be to protest something (maybe the dodgier bits of some of our private parking enforcement regime) by parking on an MP's London Driveway for a day. Unless it has changed somehow, which may have happened, a local authority cannot enforce on private land.
I'm not a particular fan, but I think there are far more significant street disturbance problems at present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Troyes
So it is entire sections or lengths of carriageway which need to be resurfaced or reconstructed.
There is also the less talked about issue that any Tom, Dick or Sally seems to be able to dig up roads, and do shit repairs - it happens repeatedly in brand new sections. This is to do with LHAs having no resources to impose timetables, or having to work hand to mouth with no chance to plan, and no resources to force whoever to work to an acceptable standard.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
Land taxes like this work quite well in other countries, but are always devolved.
That way we get competition, innovation, and transparent trade offs.
Any property tax to fund local services needs to be determined and collected locally.
But more importantly this is a classic case of ideology trying to trump reality. In reality the only way you are going to see those house prices in London collapse to a point where people can affford the 1% a year LVT is if everyone leaves. So no schools, no services, no one working in the shops.
It is yet another example of infantile, simplistic ideology crashing headlong into real life.
Stanislaw Lem once wrote a great Sci-Fi short story - a veiled critique of Soviet Poland - about an absolute ruler who decided he wanted his people to adapt to an amphibious existence. He did it by raising the water level on the planet by 1cm every year in the belief that the people would adapt to the new environment. Of course they all just drowned.
What percentage of PIP do these conditions amount against teh cost for all disability payments?
Or is it just another Wedge Issue, people who don't want to pay for others benefits being feed the scrounger line to justify that position.
I am all for cutting fraud, but much like US elections, cutting benefits because you think theirs fraud is at best poor policy and at worse just self serving nonsense.
Peter.
Mysteriously has brilliant GDP per capita and madly high property prices.
And they can't even empty the bins on the right day half the time.
Arresting race rioters community feedback session participants might damage the Peace Process.
And that’s sacred, don’t you know.
I’d get my coat, but I’m stuck in the bogs with 70 other people who’ve seen no violence. No sir.
Why would Malc let actual facts get in the way of his prejudices?
No way
Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.
NEW THREAD
Err, you said 'so what' to objections to a policy that only helps those who went to uni, who havn't paid off their lones. Like you, perchance
People whinge about high taxes hurting growth well I pay a lot of money every month in student loans repayments and I will have to continue to do so well into my 40s and I don’t even have it bad compared to a lot of people.
But more importantly this is a classic case of ideology trying to trump reality. In reality the only way you are going to see those house prices in London collapse to a point where people can affford the 1% a year LVT is if everyone leaves. So no schools, no services, no one working in the shops.
It is yet another example of infantile, simplistic ideology crashing headlong into real life.
Stanislaw Lem once wrote a great Sci-Fi short story - a veiled critique of Soviet Poland - about an absolute ruler who decided he wanted his people to adapt to an amphibious existence. He did it by raising the water level on the planet by 1cm every year in the belief that the people would adapt to the new environment. Of course they all just drowned.
London has incredibly low property tax and massive public transport/cycling investment.
London's property taxes are extremely high. People pay fortunes in stamp duty when they buy. London contributes disproportionately in just about every form of taxation, and subsidises the rest of the country hugely. What it gets back in transport spending is spare change in comparison.
My feeling is that people who take out loans should make best endeavours to repay them...
They're forgiven eventually anyway....
London's property taxes are extremely high. People pay fortunes in stamp duty when they buy. London contributes disproportionately in just about every form of taxation, and subsidises the rest of the country hugely. What it gets back in transport spending is spare change in comparison.
As soon as people start talking about CT as a percentage of property value, I know they have a massive axe to grind....
How do I know this? Because literally no one in the real world talks about their council tax like that.
The sneering from those who have paid them off and those who didn't have to pay fees if they wanted to go to university really annoys me. It's not like it was really a well informed choice. A whole generation of people, including myself, were simply told that the only way to success was to go to university and the loans would be nothing and not matter. That was a lie.
Your experience isn't the only one.
It would be fairer to all young people to cut NI for the under 30s, IMO, because that doesn't penalise those who didn't go to Uni.....
Looks like this might be an example of a dodgy bar chart in this photo.
https://x.com/TheGreenParty/status/2069076336602157330/photo/2
And you can pay it back, if you are rich or successful, but a lot of people can't. The outcome is the same as a tax for most people.
They will probably end up paying more in tax
But having to spend less time with accountants and lawyers
So a win-win…
As soon as people start talking about CT as a percentage of property value, I know they have a massive axe to grind....
How do I know this? Because literally no one in the real world talks about their council tax like that.
So, you agree that high taxes are so beneficial that London is so prosperous that it can subsidise the rest of the country.
(Thresholds chosen for political impact so don’t know whether the numbers work)