FPT Inheritance Tax, aristocrats have Roy Jenkins to thank for exempting country houses and their works of art from the tax, in return for being open to the public at various times of the year.
It would be better, in my view, to make all property subject to IHT, ending the exemptions for woodlands, businesses, agricultural land, country houses, while reducing the rate to, say, 20%.
Surely that would inevitably mean that every generation they would have to be sold since almost no one would be able to afford to pay that sort of money without selling. How is that a good thing either for the Country House or (if the access by the public ends) the country as a whole?
In terms of agricultural land, forcing businesses to sell of 20% of their asset every 30 years or so does not seem a great way to encourage people to stay in farming.
Currently, taxpayers can opt to pay IHT on real property by 10 annual instalments. I'd extend that to assets that are currently exempt.
This would be a disruptive destructive huge pain for small non listed companies.
I don't think a charge of 2% p.a. Is unbearable.
Treating some assets differently from others turns them into tax shelters. It's one reason why farmland is so expensive, relative to the income which it generates.
+1
For example, a very obvious IHT shelter is to shift assets into your business that aren't really needed for that business (there are anti-avoidance rules, but they're ineffectual).
The country needs to recognise that social care and NHS requires more funding.
Both myself and my brother will inherit a substantial estate that will by 2020 be IHT free. i.e. by 1st April 2020 any estate (that includes a home) under £1million will be nil rate.
Social care and the NHS should be funded by social insurance as they are in much of Europe and in Japan not from taking yet more from already previously taxed assets of the deceased and removing the amount left for their family
Isn't social insurance just another form of tax? On what basis would it be assessed and payed?
Seems like an odd move to do now when the government has given the Catalan authorities a few more days to clarify their response. Charges for various people were presumably inevitable given what happened with the previous unofficial poll, which was not escalated anywhere near as much, but I guess the detention of these two is part of the pressurising ahead of the new Thursday deadline?
Differential NI or income tax for young and older people is an idea I haven't heard before.
Will it make it more advantageous to hire a younger person rather than an older person? Or could it push older people into retirement earlier?
How will that fit with the laws on age discrimination?
Awkwardly I imagine in practice. Already some older workers feel/are discriminated against...
But legally - there is a different minimum wage for different ages, so I'd have thought differential taxation is okay via legislation....
Doesn't NI end at retirement age, also? Free TV licences. Young Persons Railcard. There are plenty of examples of different charges for different age groups.
Yes NI must end at retirement if you stop working I think... The article says older workers - so presumably before retirement?
Imagine Hammond is floating ideas to see what goes down badly.
Not quite, if you continue working past retirement age then you no longer pay employee NI, so it gives working pensioners an 11% pay increase (in addition to your state pension) compared with younger workers.
Why not charge pensioners earning above the tax threshold (£11-12k/y) full NI on their extra income? They use the NHS. It's a most people to understand. Osborne and Brown did.
Need to charge NI on unearned (investment income) too, to level the playing field fully. (...waits for the squeals!)
It would be illogical from a theory standpoint, as NI is by defination only associated with employment. Thats one reason why when GO put a charge on dividends, it wasn't NI.
NI is really just another tax but it distorts the tax system in many ways. The playing field is not level when it comes to paying tax (i.e. income tax + NI) on your income, if for example your income is from investments or a pension, or you are self-employed.
It would be best if NI and income tax were rolled into one but it's tough to implement because there will always be losers. So, no hope this government could achieve anything constructive in this area.
NI should be used to fund pensions, dementia care, contributory unemployment benefit etc as in theory it is supposed to and was intended for
Government income is fungible, not ring-fenced.
At the moment, does not mean NI cannot be ring-fenced in future
On topic I think I've confessed before to voting Conservative in my mis-spent youth, and until this year I'd always have second preferences them. But I realised in the GE campaign that I'd have demoted them behind Labour even thinking the same about Corbyn as most Tories. It's the tone-deafness over Brexit first and foremost that means there's a generation who won't even LG I've the Tories a hearing at the moment. While it's important to deal with the intergenerational issues (and as the thread implies it's not about sweeties for the young, but the baby boomers paying their way) their highest priority should be finding a way to talk about Brexit to keep the young on board.
If it was up to me I'd be organising regular Brexit focus groups with 18-30s and would suggest things like a big apology speech from the PM for 'citizens of nowhere' (utterly devastating) public recognition of the desire to explore he world for a generation who don't know what it is not to be connected,,and policy movement on joining schemes like Erasmus. Not enough for me, but they can't gain from some good ideas on this thread without this kind of shift.
Yet, I think people become more deeply attached to the place they live in, as they get older, so support for Brexit rose sharply among people from their thirties and upwards.
Differential NI or income tax for young and older people is an idea I haven't heard before.
Will it make it more advantageous to hire a younger person rather than an older person? Or could it push older people into retirement earlier?
How will that fit with the laws on age discrimination?
Yes NI must end at retirement if you stop working I think... The article says older workers - so presumably before retirement?
Imagine Hammond is floating ideas to see what goes down badly.
Not quite, if you continue working past retirement age then you no longer pay employee NI, so it gives working pensioners an 11% pay increase (in addition to your state pension) compared with younger workers.
Why not charge pensioners earning above the tax threshold (£11-12k/y) full NI on their extra income? They use the NHS. It's a most people to understand. Osborne and Brown did.
Need to charge NI on unearned (investment income) too, to level the playing field fully. (...waits for the squeals!)
It would be illogical from a theory standpoint, as NI is by defination only associated with employment. Thats one reason why when GO put a charge on dividends, it wasn't NI.
NI is really just another tax but it distorts the tax system in many ways. The playing field is not level when it comes to paying tax (i.e. income tax + NI) on your income, if for example your income is from investments or a pension, or you are self-employed.
It would be best if NI and income tax were rolled into one but it's tough to implement because there will always be losers. So, no hope this government could achieve anything constructive in this area.
NI should be used to fund pensions, dementia care, contributory unemployment benefit etc as in theory it is supposed to and was intended for
Government income is fungible, not ring-fenced.
At the moment, does not mean NI cannot be ring-fenced in future
But there's no reason not roll it into income tax now. If we start having ring-fenced taxes we'd be paying a defence tax, a health tax, a security tax, an education tax (ooh - can be exempt from that one as I've got no children?) etc. etc. It would be a nonsense.
That is a remarkable poll, HYUFD. The more so since most voters are never likely to be lucky enough to be affected by inheritance tax.
A nice way of putting it!
However, I think it's very much a regional thing too. Round here very few estates would be affected by it - perhaps a handful of homeowners in New Penkridge Road. But in the South East, it's a hot button topic. Maybe that makes more people feel strongly about it than say, fuel duty and that skews the results?
I'm also guessing that YouGov panellists are likely to be the wealthier end - which may also explain the high ratings for stamp duty and air passenger duty.
Interestingly though it does affect an increasing proportion of estates:
That is a remarkable poll, HYUFD. The more so since most voters are never likely to be lucky enough to be affected by inheritance tax.
Though an increasing number have been due to rising house prices, hence Osborne's IHT cut was so popular and the dementia tax so unpopular. Stamp duty is the second most unpopular so that should also be a target for a cut which would help young buyers
The country needs to recognise that social care and NHS requires more funding.
Both myself and my brother will inherit a substantial estate that will by 2020 be IHT free. i.e. by 1st April 2020 any estate (that includes a home) under £1million will be nil rate.
Social care and the NHS should be funded by social insurance as they are in much of Europe and in Japan not from taking yet more from already previously taxed assets of the deceased and removing the amount left for their family
Isn't social insurance just another form of tax? On what basis would it be assessed and payed?
Essentially but it still has the word 'insurance' so sounds a fairer way of paying for care
That is a remarkable poll, HYUFD. The more so since most voters are never likely to be lucky enough to be affected by inheritance tax.
Though an increasing number have been due to rising house prices, hence Osborne's IHT cut was so popular and the dementia tax so unpopular. Stamp duty is the second most unpopular so that should also be a target for a cut which would help young buyers
Stamp Duty is more difficult, as it does generate immense revenues, is easy to collect, and is a good way of extracting money from the rich.
Differential NI or income tax for young and older people is an idea I haven't heard before.
Will it make it more advantageous to hire a younger person rather than an older person? Or could it push older people into retirement earlier?
How will that fit with the laws on age discrimination?
Yes NI must end at retirement if you stop working I think... The article says older workers - so presumably before retirement?
Imagine Hammond is floating ideas to see what goes down badly.
Not quite, if you continue working past retirement age then you no longer pay employee NI, so it gives working pensioners an 11% pay increase (in addition to your state pension) compared with younger workers.
Why not charge pensioners earning above the tax threshold (£11-12k/y) full NI on their extra income? They use the NHS. It's a most people to understand. Osborne and Brown did.
Need to charge NI on unearned (investment income) too, to level the playing field fully. (...waits for the squeals!)
It would be illogical from a theory standpoint, as NI is by defination only associated with employment. Thats one reason why when GO put a charge on dividends, it wasn't NI.
NI is really just another tax but it distorts the tax system in many ways. The playing field is not level when it come.
NI should be used to fund pensions, dementia care, contributory unemployment benefit etc as in theory it is supposed to and was intended for
Government income is fungible, not ring-fenced.
At the moment, does not mean NI cannot be ring-fenced in future
But there's no reason not roll it into income tax now. If we start having ring-fenced taxes we'd be paying a defence tax, a health tax, a security tax, an education tax (ooh - can be exempt from that one as I've got no children?) etc. etc. It would be a nonsense.
Not totally as NI was originally intended to insure yourself against unemployment, sickness, age etc not to pay for others education or the defence of the realm etc which income tax would largely pay for
That is a remarkable poll, HYUFD. The more so since most voters are never likely to be lucky enough to be affected by inheritance tax.
Though an increasing number have been due to rising house prices, hence Osborne's IHT cut was so popular and the dementia tax so unpopular. Stamp duty is the second most unpopular so that should also be a target for a cut which would help young buyers
Stamp Duty is more difficult, as it does generate immense revenues, is easy to collect, and is a good way of extracting money from the rich.
I am not saying abandon it but cut it for cheaper properties which are more likely to be bought by first time buyers
The country needs to recognise that social care and NHS requires more funding.
Both myself and my brother will inherit a substantial estate that will by 2020 be IHT free. i.e. by 1st April 2020 any estate (that includes a home) under £1million will be nil rate.
Social care and the NHS should be funded by social insurance as they are in much of Europe and in Japan not from taking yet more from already previously taxed assets of the deceased and removing the amount left for their family
Isn't social insurance just another form of tax? On what basis would it be assessed and payed?
Essentially but it still has the word 'insurance' so sounds a fairer way of paying for care
Fine, let's abolish IHT, replace it with a charge on estates and call it 'social insurance'
Every time you think Mariano Rajoy has reached rock bottom, he gets out those jackhammers and goes lower.
Is there any evidence that he's actually a fifth columnist for Catalan and Basque separatists? He's starting to look more and more like Mrs Iseling in The Manchurian Candidate.
The legal history of sedition in not a glorious one...
Every time you think Mariano Rajoy has reached rock bottom, he gets out those jackhammers and goes lower.
Is there any evidence that he's actually a fifth columnist for Catalan and Basque separatists? He's starting to look more and more like Mrs Iseling in The Manchurian Candidate.
The legal history of sedition in not a glorious one...
Treason doth never prosper - why, what's the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason!
(Amusing practical example: Washington and Lee were both slaveholders, both traitors and both Virginians. But only one of them is having statues pulled down!)
The country needs to recognise that social care and NHS requires more funding.
Both myself and my brother will inherit a substantial estate that will by 2020 be IHT free. i.e. by 1st April 2020 any estate (that includes a home) under £1million will be nil rate.
Social care and the NHS should be funded by social insurance as they are in much of Europe and in Japan not from taking yet more from already previously taxed assets of the deceased and removing the amount left for their family
Isn't social insurance just another form of tax? On what basis would it be assessed and payed?
Essentially but it still has the word 'insurance' so sounds a fairer way of paying for care
Fine, let's abolish IHT, replace it with a charge on estates and call it 'social insurance'
You cannot define confiscation of already taxed property on death as an 'insurance' however you want to define it, that will always be a tax. At least with social insurance you are in theory regularly paying in from your wages to insure yourself for future need
Of course he does. I would like to be immensely wealthy and hung like a donkey but it is not going to happen.
To be fair, there was a while when it was less than obvious whether the likes of Kier, Chuka, et al wanted a Labour government, so it's sort of newsworthy. That was when the Tories were seen as competent, though.
That is a remarkable poll, HYUFD. The more so since most voters are never likely to be lucky enough to be affected by inheritance tax.
Certainly, since Alistair Darling's tax change doubled the amount married couples can leave.
I suppose it is because it hits at the aspiration people have of their children having a better life because of what they have done for them. Even when the actual thresholds mean they will most likely be unaffected there is the principle and the fear that a future government might change things so they are sucked into it.
Attack an individual through tax and they might become resentful. Attack their children through tax and they will become angry.
The country needs to recognise that social care and NHS requires more funding.
Both myself and my brother will inherit a substantial estate that will by 2020 be IHT free. i.e. by 1st April 2020 any estate (that includes a home) under £1million will be nil rate.
Social care and the NHS should be funded by social insurance as they are in much of Europe and in Japan not from taking yet more from already previously taxed assets of the deceased and removing the amount left for their family
Isn't social insurance just another form of tax? On what basis would it be assessed and payed?
Essentially but it still has the word 'insurance' so sounds a fairer way of paying for care
Fine, let's abolish IHT, replace it with a charge on estates and call it 'social insurance'
I don't think it'll be up McDonnell/Corbyn's street, but imo, a smart way to get the public to vote for IHT, is to offer "An inheritance for all" out of a ringfenced IHT pot.
The key is to link IHT to a tangible, politically marketable, benefit.
The country needs to recognise that social care and NHS requires more funding.
Both myself and my brother will inherit a substantial estate that will by 2020 be IHT free. i.e. by 1st April 2020 any estate (that includes a home) under £1million will be nil rate.
Social care and the NHS should be funded by social insurance as they are in much of Europe and in Japan not from taking yet more from already previously taxed assets of the deceased and removing the amount left for their family
Isn't social insurance just another form of tax? On what basis would it be assessed and payed?
Essentially but it still has the word 'insurance' so sounds a fairer way of paying for care
Fine, let's abolish IHT, replace it with a charge on estates and call it 'social insurance'
I don't think it'll be up McDonnell/Corbyn's street, but imo, a smart way to get the public to vote for IHT, is to offer "An inheritance for all" out of a ringfenced IHT pot.
The key is to link IHT to a tangible, politically marketable, benefit.
People are not going to vote for higher inheritance tax to pay for increased welfare
Comments
However, I think it's very much a regional thing too. Round here very few estates would be affected by it - perhaps a handful of homeowners in New Penkridge Road. But in the South East, it's a hot button topic. Maybe that makes more people feel strongly about it than say, fuel duty and that skews the results?
I'm also guessing that YouGov panellists are likely to be the wealthier end - which may also explain the high ratings for stamp duty and air passenger duty.
Interestingly though it does affect an increasing proportion of estates:
https://www.ft.com/content/bb99b10c-b460-11e5-8358-9a82b43f6b2f
If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason!
(Amusing practical example: Washington and Lee were both slaveholders, both traitors and both Virginians. But only one of them is having statues pulled down!)
Attack an individual through tax and they might become resentful. Attack their children through tax and they will become angry.
The key is to link IHT to a tangible, politically marketable, benefit.
NEW THREAD