There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
Ridiculous attitude from a well off Northerner.
In the North those on average incomes can buy their own homes without any assistance with few problems, in the South and London those on average incomes need an inheritance or gift from their family to buy.
You don't know my financial status, I've never shared that. But if the house prices are too high in the South there's solutions available for that. Perhaps start by constructing more homes to ensure prices come down as people can buy somewhere to live. That could be a start.
What is someone without a gift or inheritance supposed to do in your eyes? At least in my book, people have somewhere to live even if its a new build that takes a year or two to get developed.
It would only make a limited impact as long as London remains a global city with the consequent impact on the commuter belt.
It would require every new house constructed in the South to be affordable housing only available to local first time buyers who had lived there for 10 years or more, a severely restricted immigration system and a ban on foreign investment into London property to make any significant difference.
Plus most southerners want to preserve their countryside and greenbelt
Those all seem like reasonable ideas. Better than relying on handouts from parents or grandparents something not everyone can do.
At the moment you can only really afford to buy on your own if you live north of Watford.
In London and the Home Counties unless you are a high earning professional, senior executive or work in the City then essentially you need to inherit to buy
This is just factually wrong. There are lots of properties in the south east for £150k. They can be bought by two working people on minimum wage with a £15k deposit and a 90% LTV mortgage.
Outside of Luton and Hastings and Margate there aren't.
Indeed the average house price in the South East is £424,800
You are wrong about this. There is decent entry level housing available in parts of the south east at that price level. Maidstone, the medway towns, lots of places. The average price means little - obviously this is massively inflated by larger housing.
Maidstone average price £341,785.
Even terraced properties in Maidstone sold for £267,899 on average ie higher than the UK average.
The average price is a not a good metric when looking at affordability. You need to look at the price of cheap properties for first time buyers. And the reality is that in significant parts of the region you can buy properties at this level, usually flats, if you have two incomes and are able to save, even if you are both on low incomes. I know, because I did a few years ago, as did all my neighbours.
Not in most of London, even flats are unaffordable to buy there.
Maybe in the rest of the South but you cannot really bring up a family in a 1 bed flat
A first time buyer in London isn't going to be buying a family home though, or do you really think that there's a gigantic market of unsold 1 bedroom flats? Also, it really depends, if you go to somewhere like high Barnet you can probably get a 1 bed for what counts as a reasonable price in London. Some friends of my wife bought a 2 bed in Bermondsey last year for £290k which is pretty good for what they got.
You chat so much shit about London but you don't live here and you don't really know what goes on here either.
One interesting stat is the average age of a first time mum I now 28.9; with first time buyers being 34. I expect high house prices are probably bad news for fertility at a national level.
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Those figures are totally out of date.
The average house price in London, the East and the South East is over £325,000 ie over 50% not 5%.
The only way you get to only 5% of estates being hit by IHT is with Osborne's tax free IHT allowance up to £1 million for married couples
Is there any polling evidence on this supposed hatred of IHT, though? I've never met anyone who mentioned it, and when I inherited money from my mother it was an unexpected windfall, making it pretty painless to let the Treasury take a slice. I'd have thought it much less unpopular than taxes that you pay every year.
I think the problem with IHT is that the rich can easily avoid it.
I like taxes that the rich can't avoid.
That is why I like property taxes.
As far as I’m aware IHT isnt really that easy to avoid unless you actually give away your assets more than 7 years before death. Trusts are taxed separately so unless you faff around with selling assets to corporate entities etc you gotta pay it.
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
Ridiculous attitude from a well off Northerner.
In the North those on average incomes can buy their own homes without any assistance with few problems, in the South and London those on average incomes need an inheritance or gift from their family to buy.
You don't know my financial status, I've never shared that. But if the house prices are too high in the South there's solutions available for that. Perhaps start by constructing more homes to ensure prices come down as people can buy somewhere to live. That could be a start.
What is someone without a gift or inheritance supposed to do in your eyes? At least in my book, people have somewhere to live even if its a new build that takes a year or two to get developed.
It would only make a limited impact as long as London remains a global city with the consequent impact on the commuter belt.
It would require every new house constructed in the South to be affordable housing only available to local first time buyers who had lived there for 10 years or more, a severely restricted immigration system and a ban on foreign investment into London property to make any significant difference.
Plus most southerners want to preserve their countryside and greenbelt
Those all seem like reasonable ideas. Better than relying on handouts from parents or grandparents something not everyone can do.
At the moment you can only really afford to buy on your own if you live north of Watford.
In London and the Home Counties unless you are a high earning professional, senior executive or work in the City then essentially you need to inherit to buy
This is just factually wrong. There are lots of properties in the south east for £150k. They can be bought by two working people on minimum wage with a £15k deposit and a 90% LTV mortgage.
Outside of Luton and Hastings and Margate there aren't.
Indeed the average house price in the South East is £424,800
Your making the same mistake as you did yesterday. Now again I don't know who is right, but your quoting of average prices is meaningless as most people will pay much less than the average price because the spread of prices is uneven. I thought you finally got this yesterday.
As soon as you make an assumption about a fact it is no longer a fact but an opinion. And you relentlessly jump to invalid assumptions. It is a an impressive skill.
No because your point was irrelevant as rather than the mean wage if you went for the lower median house price you would also have to go for the median lower wage, so the discrepancy was little different
That might be true, as I said I don't know, but that is no excuse for putting forward crap as evidence.
If you knew the evidence was rubbish why publish it? Why not use valid data to back up your argument?
You aren't arguing with others about salaries, you are arguing about house prices and you used wrong data to argue about house prices. Not a sole mentioned salaries in this current discussion. You are telling them they are wrong about house prices.
Is there any polling evidence on this supposed hatred of IHT, though? I've never met anyone who mentioned it, and when I inherited money from my mother it was an unexpected windfall, making it pretty painless to let the Treasury take a slice. I'd have thought it much less unpopular than taxes that you pay every year.
I think the problem with IHT is that the rich can easily avoid it.
I like taxes that the rich can't avoid.
That is why I like property taxes.
What about modernising VAT (now we aren't in the EU, totally free choice), and ensuring plenty on high end items?
Anybody who has been to something like a CostCo can see what nonsense what is VATable and what isn't.
Fine by me.
Not least because my vice is the purchase of antiquarian books on science.
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
Ridiculous attitude from a well off Northerner.
In the North those on average incomes can buy their own homes without any assistance with few problems, in the South and London those on average incomes need an inheritance or gift from their family to buy.
You don't know my financial status, I've never shared that. But if the house prices are too high in the South there's solutions available for that. Perhaps start by constructing more homes to ensure prices come down as people can buy somewhere to live. That could be a start.
What is someone without a gift or inheritance supposed to do in your eyes? At least in my book, people have somewhere to live even if its a new build that takes a year or two to get developed.
It would only make a limited impact as long as London remains a global city with the consequent impact on the commuter belt.
It would require every new house constructed in the South to be affordable housing only available to local first time buyers who had lived there for 10 years or more, a severely restricted immigration system and a ban on foreign investment into London property to make any significant difference.
Plus most southerners want to preserve their countryside and greenbelt
Those all seem like reasonable ideas. Better than relying on handouts from parents or grandparents something not everyone can do.
At the moment you can only really afford to buy on your own if you live north of Watford.
In London and the Home Counties unless you are a high earning professional, senior executive or work in the City then essentially you need to inherit to buy
This is just factually wrong. There are lots of properties in the south east for £150k. They can be bought by two working people on minimum wage with a £15k deposit and a 90% LTV mortgage.
Outside of Luton and Hastings and Margate there aren't.
Indeed the average house price in the South East is £424,800
Your making the same mistake as you did yesterday. Now again I don't know who is right, but your quoting of average prices is meaningless as most people will pay much less than the average price because the spread of prices is uneven. I thought you finally got this yesterday.
As soon as you make an assumption about a fact it is no longer a fact but an opinion. And you relentlessly jump to invalid assumptions. It is a an impressive skill.
No because your point was irrelevant as rather than the mean wage if you went for the lower median house price you would also have to go for the median lower wage, so the discrepancy was little different
That might be true, as I said I don't know, but that is no excuse for putting forward crap as evidence.
If you knew the evidence was rubbish why publish it? Why not use valid data to back up your argument?
You aren't arguing with others about salaries, you are arguing about house prices and you used wrong data to argue about house prices. Not a sole mentioned salaries in this current discussion. You are telling them they are wrong about house prices.
Nice move of goal posts.
As the whole point of the argument is the salary to house price ratio, whether in the North or the South.
While whether you use the median house price or the mean house price London and the South East is still far higher than the North
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
Ridiculous attitude from a well off Northerner.
In the North those on average incomes can buy their own homes without any assistance with few problems, in the South and London those on average incomes need an inheritance or gift from their family to buy.
You don't know my financial status, I've never shared that. But if the house prices are too high in the South there's solutions available for that. Perhaps start by constructing more homes to ensure prices come down as people can buy somewhere to live. That could be a start.
What is someone without a gift or inheritance supposed to do in your eyes? At least in my book, people have somewhere to live even if its a new build that takes a year or two to get developed.
It would only make a limited impact as long as London remains a global city with the consequent impact on the commuter belt.
It would require every new house constructed in the South to be affordable housing only available to local first time buyers who had lived there for 10 years or more, a severely restricted immigration system and a ban on foreign investment into London property to make any significant difference.
Plus most southerners want to preserve their countryside and greenbelt
Those all seem like reasonable ideas. Better than relying on handouts from parents or grandparents something not everyone can do.
At the moment you can only really afford to buy on your own if you live north of Watford.
In London and the Home Counties unless you are a high earning professional, senior executive or work in the City then essentially you need to inherit to buy
This is just factually wrong. There are lots of properties in the south east for £150k. They can be bought by two working people on minimum wage with a £15k deposit and a 90% LTV mortgage.
Outside of Luton and Hastings and Margate there aren't.
Indeed the average house price in the South East is £424,800
Your making the same mistake as you did yesterday. Now again I don't know who is right, but your quoting of average prices is meaningless as most people will pay much less than the average price because the spread of prices is uneven. I thought you finally got this yesterday.
As soon as you make an assumption about a fact it is no longer a fact but an opinion. And you relentlessly jump to invalid assumptions. It is a an impressive skill.
No because your point was irrelevant as rather than the mean wage if you went for the lower median house price you would also have to go for the median lower wage, so the discrepancy was little different
That might be true, as I said I don't know, but that is no excuse for putting forward crap as evidence.
If you knew the evidence was rubbish why publish it? Why not use valid data to back up your argument?
You aren't arguing with others about salaries, you are arguing about house prices and you used wrong data to argue about house prices. Not a sole mentioned salaries in this current discussion. You are telling them they are wrong about house prices.
Nice move of goal posts.
As the whole point of the argument is the salary to house price ratio, whether in the North or the South
Yep that is fine, so why quote irrelevant data and link then? Why do you think so many people came and pointed this out to you? What was point of posting the average house price as evidence that they are unaffordable when they show no such thing, even if it is true?
This is just bonkers stuff. You don't get that even if you are right you do yourself no favours by arguing so irrationally.
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
Ridiculous attitude from a well off Northerner.
In the North those on average incomes can buy their own homes without any assistance with few problems, in the South and London those on average incomes need an inheritance or gift from their family to buy.
You don't know my financial status, I've never shared that. But if the house prices are too high in the South there's solutions available for that. Perhaps start by constructing more homes to ensure prices come down as people can buy somewhere to live. That could be a start.
What is someone without a gift or inheritance supposed to do in your eyes? At least in my book, people have somewhere to live even if its a new build that takes a year or two to get developed.
It would only make a limited impact as long as London remains a global city with the consequent impact on the commuter belt.
It would require every new house constructed in the South to be affordable housing only available to local first time buyers who had lived there for 10 years or more, a severely restricted immigration system and a ban on foreign investment into London property to make any significant difference.
Plus most southerners want to preserve their countryside and greenbelt
Those all seem like reasonable ideas. Better than relying on handouts from parents or grandparents something not everyone can do.
At the moment you can only really afford to buy on your own if you live north of Watford.
In London and the Home Counties unless you are a high earning professional, senior executive or work in the City then essentially you need to inherit to buy
This is just factually wrong. There are lots of properties in the south east for £150k. They can be bought by two working people on minimum wage with a £15k deposit and a 90% LTV mortgage.
Outside of Luton and Hastings and Margate there aren't.
Indeed the average house price in the South East is £424,800
Your making the same mistake as you did yesterday. Now again I don't know who is right, but your quoting of average prices is meaningless as most people will pay much less than the average price because the spread of prices is uneven. I thought you finally got this yesterday.
As soon as you make an assumption about a fact it is no longer a fact but an opinion. And you relentlessly jump to invalid assumptions. It is a an impressive skill.
No because your point was irrelevant as rather than the mean wage if you went for the lower median house price you would also have to go for the median lower wage, so the discrepancy was little different
That might be true, as I said I don't know, but that is no excuse for putting forward crap as evidence.
If you knew the evidence was rubbish why publish it? Why not use valid data to back up your argument?
You aren't arguing with others about salaries, you are arguing about house prices and you used wrong data to argue about house prices. Not a sole mentioned salaries in this current discussion. You are telling them they are wrong about house prices.
Nice move of goal posts.
As the whole point of the argument is the salary to house price ratio, whether in the North or the South
Yep that is fine, so why quote irrelevant data and link then? Why do you think so many people came and pointed this out to you? What was point of posting the average house price as evidence that they are unaffordable when they show no such thing, even if it is true?
This is just bonkers stuff. You don't get that even if you are right you do yourself no favours by arguing so irrationally.
Nobody pointed it out to me but you this evening because there was nothing to point out, if you used the median price rather than mean price you would also have to use the lower median income rather than higher mean income.
So rather than tediously trawling the internet to find the median price just to stop you being tediously pedantic at 11 03pm on a Tuesday evening I will continue to post the average house price as recorded on whichever housing website I happen to find
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
Ridiculous attitude from a well off Northerner.
In the North those on average incomes can buy their own homes without any assistance with few problems, in the South and London those on average incomes need an inheritance or gift from their family to buy.
You don't know my financial status, I've never shared that. But if the house prices are too high in the South there's solutions available for that. Perhaps start by constructing more homes to ensure prices come down as people can buy somewhere to live. That could be a start.
What is someone without a gift or inheritance supposed to do in your eyes? At least in my book, people have somewhere to live even if its a new build that takes a year or two to get developed.
It would only make a limited impact as long as London remains a global city with the consequent impact on the commuter belt.
It would require every new house constructed in the South to be affordable housing only available to local first time buyers who had lived there for 10 years or more, a severely restricted immigration system and a ban on foreign investment into London property to make any significant difference.
Plus most southerners want to preserve their countryside and greenbelt
Those all seem like reasonable ideas. Better than relying on handouts from parents or grandparents something not everyone can do.
At the moment you can only really afford to buy on your own if you live north of Watford.
In London and the Home Counties unless you are a high earning professional, senior executive or work in the City then essentially you need to inherit to buy
This is just factually wrong. There are lots of properties in the south east for £150k. They can be bought by two working people on minimum wage with a £15k deposit and a 90% LTV mortgage.
Outside of Luton and Hastings and Margate there aren't.
Indeed the average house price in the South East is £424,800
Your making the same mistake as you did yesterday. Now again I don't know who is right, but your quoting of average prices is meaningless as most people will pay much less than the average price because the spread of prices is uneven. I thought you finally got this yesterday.
As soon as you make an assumption about a fact it is no longer a fact but an opinion. And you relentlessly jump to invalid assumptions. It is a an impressive skill.
No because your point was irrelevant as rather than the mean wage if you went for the lower median house price you would also have to go for the median lower wage, so the discrepancy was little different
That might be true, as I said I don't know, but that is no excuse for putting forward crap as evidence.
If you knew the evidence was rubbish why publish it? Why not use valid data to back up your argument?
You aren't arguing with others about salaries, you are arguing about house prices and you used wrong data to argue about house prices. Not a sole mentioned salaries in this current discussion. You are telling them they are wrong about house prices.
Nice move of goal posts.
As the whole point of the argument is the salary to house price ratio, whether in the North or the South
Yep that is fine, so why quote irrelevant data and link then? Why do you think so many people came and pointed this out to you? What was point of posting the average house price as evidence that they are unaffordable when they show no such thing, even if it is true?
This is just bonkers stuff. You don't get that even if you are right you do yourself no favours by arguing so irrationally.
Nobody pointed it out to me but you this evening because there was nothing to point out, if you used the median price rather than mean price you would also have to use the lower median income rather than higher mean income.
So rather than tediously trawling the internet to find the median price just to stop you being tediously pedantic at 11 03pm on a Tuesday evening I will continue to post the average house price as recorded on whichever housing website I happen to find
Nobody pointed it out? There are a number of posts doing just that below
You were specifically arguing with several people about house prices in the S E and nothing else. Literally just that and nothing else. You quoted average prices and they pointed out you were wrong. Sorry but you are making stuff up now.
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
Ridiculous attitude from a well off Northerner.
In the North those on average incomes can buy their own homes without any assistance with few problems, in the South and London those on average incomes need an inheritance or gift from their family to buy.
You don't know my financial status, I've never shared that. But if the house prices are too high in the South there's solutions available for that. Perhaps start by constructing more homes to ensure prices come down as people can buy somewhere to live. That could be a start.
What is someone without a gift or inheritance supposed to do in your eyes? At least in my book, people have somewhere to live even if its a new build that takes a year or two to get developed.
It would only make a limited impact as long as London remains a global city with the consequent impact on the commuter belt.
It would require every new house constructed in the South to be affordable housing only available to local first time buyers who had lived there for 10 years or more, a severely restricted immigration system and a ban on foreign investment into London property to make any significant difference.
Plus most southerners want to preserve their countryside and greenbelt
Those all seem like reasonable ideas. Better than relying on handouts from parents or grandparents something not everyone can do.
At the moment you can only really afford to buy on your own if you live north of Watford.
In London and the Home Counties unless you are a high earning professional, senior executive or work in the City then essentially you need to inherit to buy
This is just factually wrong. There are lots of properties in the south east for £150k. They can be bought by two working people on minimum wage with a £15k deposit and a 90% LTV mortgage.
Outside of Luton and Hastings and Margate there aren't.
Indeed the average house price in the South East is £424,800
Your making the same mistake as you did yesterday. Now again I don't know who is right, but your quoting of average prices is meaningless as most people will pay much less than the average price because the spread of prices is uneven. I thought you finally got this yesterday.
As soon as you make an assumption about a fact it is no longer a fact but an opinion. And you relentlessly jump to invalid assumptions. It is a an impressive skill.
No because your point was irrelevant as rather than the mean wage if you went for the lower median house price you would also have to go for the median lower wage, so the discrepancy was little different
That might be true, as I said I don't know, but that is no excuse for putting forward crap as evidence.
If you knew the evidence was rubbish why publish it? Why not use valid data to back up your argument?
You aren't arguing with others about salaries, you are arguing about house prices and you used wrong data to argue about house prices. Not a sole mentioned salaries in this current discussion. You are telling them they are wrong about house prices.
Nice move of goal posts.
As the whole point of the argument is the salary to house price ratio, whether in the North or the South
Yep that is fine, so why quote irrelevant data and link then? Why do you think so many people came and pointed this out to you? What was point of posting the average house price as evidence that they are unaffordable when they show no such thing, even if it is true?
This is just bonkers stuff. You don't get that even if you are right you do yourself no favours by arguing so irrationally.
Nobody pointed it out to me but you this evening because there was nothing to point out, if you used the median price rather than mean price you would also have to use the lower median income rather than higher mean income.
So rather than tediously trawling the internet to find the median price just to stop you being tediously pedantic at 11 03pm on a Tuesday evening I will continue to post the average house price as recorded on whichever housing website I happen to find
Nobody pointed it out? There are a number of posts doing just that below
You were specifically arguing with several people about house prices in the S E and nothing else. Literally just that and nothing elsethat
None at all, one or 2 pointed out a handful of local authorities where you might be able to find a few properties you might be able to afford as a starter home.
None continued the tedious beyond belief posts on averages you did
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
You are still not there. The nil-rate bands can be doubled up.
The percentage of the threshold that was not used when the first partner died increases the basic threshold that’s available to their estate .
You'll get there ... eventually.
No, idiot, because even if you get the nil rate band to £1m, including main residence, that isn't someone rich these days. You can't afford to give away anything out of that if you expect to live another 7 years.
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
You are still not there. The nil-rate bands can be doubled up.
The percentage of the threshold that was not used when the first partner died increases the basic threshold that’s available to their estate .
You'll get there ... eventually.
No, idiot, because even if you get the nil rate band to £1m, including main residence, that isn't someone rich these days. You can't afford to give away anything out of that if you expect to live another 7 years.
I think a lot of people will disagree that millionaires aren't rich.
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
You are still not there. The nil-rate bands can be doubled up.
The percentage of the threshold that was not used when the first partner died increases the basic threshold that’s available to their estate .
You'll get there ... eventually.
No, idiot, because even if you get the nil rate band to £1m, including main residence, that isn't someone rich these days. You can't afford to give away anything out of that if you expect to live another 7 years.
Many, many congratulations on getting a piece of elementary arithmetic correct on the third go. Adding can be a bit tricky. Next up, we might try some long division.
Or maybe some algebraic topology -- no forget the latter.
So, now your argument is that if you have an estate in excess of a million pounds , you need to keep all the excess, because you might need it.
I am impressed.
What are you planning to do in your old age @IshmaelZ that needs so much money you can't give anything away to your family !
You have a serious drug habit? Or is it hookers? I know, its the fox-hunting. It is certainly not maths books.
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
You are still not there. The nil-rate bands can be doubled up.
The percentage of the threshold that was not used when the first partner died increases the basic threshold that’s available to their estate .
You'll get there ... eventually.
No, idiot, because even if you get the nil rate band to £1m, including main residence, that isn't someone rich these days. You can't afford to give away anything out of that if you expect to live another 7 years.
I think a lot of people will disagree that millionaires aren't rich.
If you live in a house worth 400k you have 600k outside it, yielding say 3k a year at current interest rates. Rich?
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
You are still not there. The nil-rate bands can be doubled up.
The percentage of the threshold that was not used when the first partner died increases the basic threshold that’s available to their estate .
You'll get there ... eventually.
No, idiot, because even if you get the nil rate band to £1m, including main residence, that isn't someone rich these days. You can't afford to give away anything out of that if you expect to live another 7 years.
Many, many congratulations on getting a piece of elementary arithmetic correct on the third go. Adding can be a bit tricky. Next up, we might try some long division.
Or maybe some algebraic topology -- no forget the latter.
So, now your argument is that if you have an estate in excess of a million pounds , you need to keep all the excess, because you might need it.
I am impressed.
What are you planning to do in your old age @IshmaelZ that needs so much money you can't give anything away to your family !
You have a serious drug habit? Or is it hookers? I know, its the fox-hunting. It is certainly not maths books.
Too many false assumptions there to know where to start, and I'm not prepared to go into how much money I or my children have. But it is non negligible, and estate planning has been done.
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
You are still not there. The nil-rate bands can be doubled up.
The percentage of the threshold that was not used when the first partner died increases the basic threshold that’s available to their estate .
You'll get there ... eventually.
No, idiot, because even if you get the nil rate band to £1m, including main residence, that isn't someone rich these days. You can't afford to give away anything out of that if you expect to live another 7 years.
I think a lot of people will disagree that millionaires aren't rich.
If you live in a house worth 400k you have 600k outside it, yielding say 3k a year at current interest rates. Rich?
Yes.
Considering we're talking about 1/20 originally, I suspect that wealth would put you in the top 5 percentile, yes.
Too many false assumptions there to know where to start, and I'm not prepared to go into how much money I or my children have. But it is non negligible, and estate planning has been done.
But it is non negligible, and estate planning has been done.
Exactly. I am very, very sure it has.
I am certain that all the affluent folk of pb.com have done their IHT sums
Or, in your case, have an accountant to do the sums because you seem to have been bottom of lower stream in Mathematics.
And that, folks, is why IHT does not work.
However, the swingeing property tax on @IshmaelZ Country Estate cannot be avoided.
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
You are still not there. The nil-rate bands can be doubled up.
The percentage of the threshold that was not used when the first partner died increases the basic threshold that’s available to their estate .
You'll get there ... eventually.
No, idiot, because even if you get the nil rate band to £1m, including main residence, that isn't someone rich these days. You can't afford to give away anything out of that if you expect to live another 7 years.
I think a lot of people will disagree that millionaires aren't rich.
If you live in a house worth 400k you have 600k outside it, yielding say 3k a year at current interest rates. Rich?
I could easily live my current lifestyle for 30 years by drawing that down as capital, and that's with a mortgage to pay. I think I'd class that as rich personally.
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
You are still not there. The nil-rate bands can be doubled up.
The percentage of the threshold that was not used when the first partner died increases the basic threshold that’s available to their estate .
You'll get there ... eventually.
No, idiot, because even if you get the nil rate band to £1m, including main residence, that isn't someone rich these days. You can't afford to give away anything out of that if you expect to live another 7 years.
I think a lot of people will disagree that millionaires aren't rich.
If you live in a house worth 400k you have 600k outside it, yielding say 3k a year at current interest rates. Rich?
Yes.
Considering we're talking about 1/20 originally, I suspect that wealth would put you in the top 5 percentile, yes.
Well, it might do, but how does that make you rich? Ex hypothesi we're talking about people who expect to live another 7 years minimum. If you are confident of living that long it must be 50/50 you will live twice that long, so the maximum you can afford to spend is 42000 a year, even if you just spend it down till there is nothing left.
Too many false assumptions there to know where to start, and I'm not prepared to go into how much money I or my children have. But it is non negligible, and estate planning has been done.
But it is non negligible, and estate planning has been done.
Exactly. I am very, very sure it has.
I am certain that all the affluent folk of pb.com have done their IHT sums
Or, in your case, have an accountant to do the sums because you seem to have been bottom of lower stream in Mathematics.
And that, folks, is why IHT does not work.
However, the swingeing property tax on @IshmaelZ Country Estate cannot be avoided.
Are you drunk?
If I had a country estate, which I haven't, it would be exempt as farmland anyway. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
You are still not there. The nil-rate bands can be doubled up.
The percentage of the threshold that was not used when the first partner died increases the basic threshold that’s available to their estate .
You'll get there ... eventually.
No, idiot, because even if you get the nil rate band to £1m, including main residence, that isn't someone rich these days. You can't afford to give away anything out of that if you expect to live another 7 years.
I think a lot of people will disagree that millionaires aren't rich.
If you live in a house worth 400k you have 600k outside it, yielding say 3k a year at current interest rates. Rich?
Yes.
Considering we're talking about 1/20 originally, I suspect that wealth would put you in the top 5 percentile, yes.
Well, it might do, but how does that make you rich? Ex hypothesi we're talking about people who expect to live another 7 years minimum. If you are confident of living that long it must be 50/50 you will live twice that long, so the maximum you can afford to spend is 42000 a year, even if you just spend it down till there is nothing left.
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
You are still not there. The nil-rate bands can be doubled up.
The percentage of the threshold that was not used when the first partner died increases the basic threshold that’s available to their estate .
You'll get there ... eventually.
No, idiot, because even if you get the nil rate band to £1m, including main residence, that isn't someone rich these days. You can't afford to give away anything out of that if you expect to live another 7 years.
I think a lot of people will disagree that millionaires aren't rich.
If you live in a house worth 400k you have 600k outside it, yielding say 3k a year at current interest rates. Rich?
Yes.
Considering we're talking about 1/20 originally, I suspect that wealth would put you in the top 5 percentile, yes.
Well, it might do, but how does that make you rich? Ex hypothesi we're talking about people who expect to live another 7 years minimum. If you are confident of living that long it must be 50/50 you will live twice that long, so the maximum you can afford to spend is 42000 a year, even if you just spend it down till there is nothing left.
£42k disposable income, with no taxes on that, and no mortgage or rent to pay is still rich.
£42k takehome pay post-tax would still put you in a top percentile.
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
You are still not there. The nil-rate bands can be doubled up.
The percentage of the threshold that was not used when the first partner died increases the basic threshold that’s available to their estate .
You'll get there ... eventually.
No, idiot, because even if you get the nil rate band to £1m, including main residence, that isn't someone rich these days. You can't afford to give away anything out of that if you expect to live another 7 years.
I think a lot of people will disagree that millionaires aren't rich.
If you live in a house worth 400k you have 600k outside it, yielding say 3k a year at current interest rates. Rich?
Yes.
Considering we're talking about 1/20 originally, I suspect that wealth would put you in the top 5 percentile, yes.
Well, it might do, but how does that make you rich? Ex hypothesi we're talking about people who expect to live another 7 years minimum. If you are confident of living that long it must be 50/50 you will live twice that long, so the maximum you can afford to spend is 42000 a year, even if you just spend it down till there is nothing left.
42k net a year is a lot of money mind
Yes, if you don't mind running out in year 15. And it doesn't pay for a Porsche and champagne lifestyle which is what I'd call rich (and, for the avoidance of doubt, I couldn't afford and wouldn't want).
Too many false assumptions there to know where to start, and I'm not prepared to go into how much money I or my children have. But it is non negligible, and estate planning has been done.
But it is non negligible, and estate planning has been done.
Exactly. I am very, very sure it has.
I am certain that all the affluent folk of pb.com have done their IHT sums
Or, in your case, have an accountant to do the sums because you seem to have been bottom of lower stream in Mathematics.
And that, folks, is why IHT does not work.
However, the swingeing property tax on @IshmaelZ Country Estate cannot be avoided.
Are you drunk?
If I had a country estate, which I haven't, it would be exempt as farmland anyway. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
Indeed -- there is agricultural relief for IHT.
Another reason why it is so difficult to get IHT to do its job.
I can see why you love IHT, it just doesn't work, so many exemptions for the rich !!
But, the point is my swingeing property tax won't have all these IHT loopholes that your clever accountant can exploit.
It will be 'Hey, @IshmaelZ, that country estate and property portfolio has just been valued at 10 mill.
The tax rate is 50 per cent. Hand over 5 mill to be distributed to the poor and worthy.
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
You are still not there. The nil-rate bands can be doubled up.
The percentage of the threshold that was not used when the first partner died increases the basic threshold that’s available to their estate .
You'll get there ... eventually.
No, idiot, because even if you get the nil rate band to £1m, including main residence, that isn't someone rich these days. You can't afford to give away anything out of that if you expect to live another 7 years.
I think a lot of people will disagree that millionaires aren't rich.
If you live in a house worth 400k you have 600k outside it, yielding say 3k a year at current interest rates. Rich?
Yes.
Considering we're talking about 1/20 originally, I suspect that wealth would put you in the top 5 percentile, yes.
Well, it might do, but how does that make you rich? Ex hypothesi we're talking about people who expect to live another 7 years minimum. If you are confident of living that long it must be 50/50 you will live twice that long, so the maximum you can afford to spend is 42000 a year, even if you just spend it down till there is nothing left.
42k net a year is a lot of money mind
Yes, if you don't mind running out in year 15. And it doesn't pay for a Porsche and champagne lifestyle which is what I'd call rich (and, for the avoidance of doubt, I couldn't afford and wouldn't want).
Everyone considers those richer than themselves rich, but not themselves.
If you're in a top percentile, then objectively you're rich. Subjectively though even Richard Branson could say he isn't, since he's poorer than Elon Musk.
Too many false assumptions there to know where to start, and I'm not prepared to go into how much money I or my children have. But it is non negligible, and estate planning has been done.
But it is non negligible, and estate planning has been done.
Exactly. I am very, very sure it has.
I am certain that all the affluent folk of pb.com have done their IHT sums
Or, in your case, have an accountant to do the sums because you seem to have been bottom of lower stream in Mathematics.
And that, folks, is why IHT does not work.
However, the swingeing property tax on @IshmaelZ Country Estate cannot be avoided.
Are you drunk?
If I had a country estate, which I haven't, it would be exempt as farmland anyway. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
Indeed -- there is agricultural relief for IHT.
Another reason why it is so difficult to get IHT to do its job.
I can see why you love IHT, it just doesn't work, so many exemptions for the rich !!
But, the point is my swingeing property tax won't have all these IHT loopholes that your clever accountant can exploit.
It will be 'Hey, @IshmaelZ, that country estate and property portfolio has just been valued at 10 mill.
The tax rate is 50 per cent. Hand over 5 mill to be distributed to the poor and worthy.
Job done.
You are drunk. Where this started was, I said iht was a tax easily avoided if, and only if, you are seriously rich, and you have got from that to "I love it." I'd have thought even you could see that that was a criticism of it, but obviously not.
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
You are still not there. The nil-rate bands can be doubled up.
The percentage of the threshold that was not used when the first partner died increases the basic threshold that’s available to their estate .
You'll get there ... eventually.
No, idiot, because even if you get the nil rate band to £1m, including main residence, that isn't someone rich these days. You can't afford to give away anything out of that if you expect to live another 7 years.
I think a lot of people will disagree that millionaires aren't rich.
If you live in a house worth 400k you have 600k outside it, yielding say 3k a year at current interest rates. Rich?
Yes.
Considering we're talking about 1/20 originally, I suspect that wealth would put you in the top 5 percentile, yes.
Well, it might do, but how does that make you rich? Ex hypothesi we're talking about people who expect to live another 7 years minimum. If you are confident of living that long it must be 50/50 you will live twice that long, so the maximum you can afford to spend is 42000 a year, even if you just spend it down till there is nothing left.
42k net a year is a lot of money mind
Yes, if you don't mind running out in year 15. And it doesn't pay for a Porsche and champagne lifestyle which is what I'd call rich (and, for the avoidance of doubt, I couldn't afford and wouldn't want).
Everyone considers those richer than themselves rich, but not themselves.
If you're in a top percentile, then objectively you're rich. Subjectively though even Richard Branson could say he isn't, since he's poorer than Elon Musk.
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
You are still not there. The nil-rate bands can be doubled up.
The percentage of the threshold that was not used when the first partner died increases the basic threshold that’s available to their estate .
You'll get there ... eventually.
No, idiot, because even if you get the nil rate band to £1m, including main residence, that isn't someone rich these days. You can't afford to give away anything out of that if you expect to live another 7 years.
I think a lot of people will disagree that millionaires aren't rich.
If you live in a house worth 400k you have 600k outside it, yielding say 3k a year at current interest rates. Rich?
Only an idiot would have it in cash, in any conservative shares portfolio you would get 5-10% easily, so £30 -60K a year
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
You are still not there. The nil-rate bands can be doubled up.
The percentage of the threshold that was not used when the first partner died increases the basic threshold that’s available to their estate .
You'll get there ... eventually.
No, idiot, because even if you get the nil rate band to £1m, including main residence, that isn't someone rich these days. You can't afford to give away anything out of that if you expect to live another 7 years.
I think a lot of people will disagree that millionaires aren't rich.
If you live in a house worth 400k you have 600k outside it, yielding say 3k a year at current interest rates. Rich?
Yes.
Considering we're talking about 1/20 originally, I suspect that wealth would put you in the top 5 percentile, yes.
Well, it might do, but how does that make you rich? Ex hypothesi we're talking about people who expect to live another 7 years minimum. If you are confident of living that long it must be 50/50 you will live twice that long, so the maximum you can afford to spend is 42000 a year, even if you just spend it down till there is nothing left.
42k net a year is a lot of money mind
Yes, if you don't mind running out in year 15. And it doesn't pay for a Porsche and champagne lifestyle which is what I'd call rich (and, for the avoidance of doubt, I couldn't afford and wouldn't want).
Google suggests new Porsches start at about £50k. I'd guess the depreciation curve means that if you replace with brand new every three years, you're looking at £10k a year. That leaves you a mere £32k a year to split between the grocery shop and the bubbly - you should be able to have a fairly decent time on that.
Too many false assumptions there to know where to start, and I'm not prepared to go into how much money I or my children have. But it is non negligible, and estate planning has been done.
But it is non negligible, and estate planning has been done.
Exactly. I am very, very sure it has.
I am certain that all the affluent folk of pb.com have done their IHT sums
Or, in your case, have an accountant to do the sums because you seem to have been bottom of lower stream in Mathematics.
And that, folks, is why IHT does not work.
However, the swingeing property tax on @IshmaelZ Country Estate cannot be avoided.
Are you drunk?
If I had a country estate, which I haven't, it would be exempt as farmland anyway. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
Indeed -- there is agricultural relief for IHT.
Another reason why it is so difficult to get IHT to do its job.
I can see why you love IHT, it just doesn't work, so many exemptions for the rich !!
But, the point is my swingeing property tax won't have all these IHT loopholes that your clever accountant can exploit.
It will be 'Hey, @IshmaelZ, that country estate and property portfolio has just been valued at 10 mill.
The tax rate is 50 per cent. Hand over 5 mill to be distributed to the poor and worthy.
Job done.
You are drunk. Where this started was, I said iht was a tax easily avoided if, and only if, you are seriously rich, and you have got from that to "I love it." I'd have thought even you could see that that was a criticism of it, but obviously not.
1. We both agree that IHT is easily avoided, if you are seriously rich.
2. I then corrected your sums. You thought the threshold was 325k. I pointed out it was actually a million. IHT is now only paid by people with an estate over a million pounds.
3. So, IHT is only paid by the seriously rich.
4. We have already agreed that it can be easily avoided by the seriously rich.
So, the tax is feckin' ineffective.
If you wish to raise money from the rich, you tax property. Property can't be hidden.
Property can be given away to a family member, but then the tax is just transferred to the new owner and can't be avoided.
OK, so the issue is that some people's inheritances get gobbled up when their parents need residential care. It is all a bit of a lottery who loses out and who keeps the jackpot.
So the way to make it fair and remove the uncertainty is to impose a significant increase in Inheritance Tax to cover these costs. That way, everyone takes a partial hit, rather than all or nothing.
Fairness for all. And it doesn't clobber the working age folks whose parents are poor and wouldn't be leaving them a pile of cash anyway.
That's my proposal. Now over to Labour to either adopt it or come up with something better.
I've always thought that IHT had a lot going for it, but if you are looking for Labour to go into bat against the interests of aged homeowners then you may be waiting a very long time. They whinged that the Tories were taking the 8% pension increase away, after all.
Increasing IHT to the level needed to raise the extra £12billion the levy raises is not politically deliverable imho. The public hates IHT. It may not be rational but there you have it.
I think this is correct. It is a hated tax by the public.
When dealing with the death of a parent, and its associated grief, almost the last thing any child wants is to have to deal with IHT on their parent's estate as well.
And, as IHT can easily be mitigated by smart financial planning, it is even more unfair than NI. The only people who end up paying it are those who die suddenly with no planning and those who distrust their family more than HMRC.
So, I think it is a non-starter as no Gov't would actually ever get elected on such a platform.
The obvious thing is to reform property taxes to ensure those with wealthy property portfolios pay much, much more. Property is hard to hide & reasonably straightforward to value.
The first step to increase the fairness of our tax system is the complete reform of Council Tax. And I believe it is a devolved matter -- so Labour could do this in Wales right now.
19 people out of 20 don't leave enough to pay IHT in the first place. It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large. Secondly there's a lot of administrative shit you inevitably have to deal with on the death of a parent, IHT or not. Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on.
" It is hated by the voting public, not the public at large."
So, can you see why the proposal is not in the realm of practical politics?
"Thirdly it is only "easily mitigated" if you are seriously rich, because mitigation strategies require giving away a lot either directly or into trust, while retaining enough to live on".
It is only paid by the rich (& feckless) as you concede in your first sentence, "19 out of 20..."
You have to trust your family. Then it is very easy. That is why I said it is paid by people who distrust their family more than HMRC.
Of course, I am not privy to whatever acrimonious relations persist amongst the members of the family @IshmaelZ -- but most people trust their family more than HMRC.
Hence, it is easy to avoid.
As you say, only 1 out of 20 pay it -- and not the richest 1 in 20. So, it is grossly unfair, as currently implemented.
Twit.
Only one in twenty estates exceeds £325,000, the level at which IHT becomes payable. If you have £325,000 in assets including your main residence, how much of that do you think you can give away on the basis that, Hey, I'll be fine for a minimum of the next seven years, on the balance?
I think you are the poster who thinks that Boadicea was a Welshman. I never thought you would surpass that, so props for your ability to surprise.
Boudicca was Welsh. She was a Brythonic Celt.
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
You are still not there. The nil-rate bands can be doubled up.
The percentage of the threshold that was not used when the first partner died increases the basic threshold that’s available to their estate .
You'll get there ... eventually.
No, idiot, because even if you get the nil rate band to £1m, including main residence, that isn't someone rich these days. You can't afford to give away anything out of that if you expect to live another 7 years.
I think a lot of people will disagree that millionaires aren't rich.
If you live in a house worth 400k you have 600k outside it, yielding say 3k a year at current interest rates. Rich?
Yes.
Considering we're talking about 1/20 originally, I suspect that wealth would put you in the top 5 percentile, yes.
Well, it might do, but how does that make you rich? Ex hypothesi we're talking about people who expect to live another 7 years minimum. If you are confident of living that long it must be 50/50 you will live twice that long, so the maximum you can afford to spend is 42000 a year, even if you just spend it down till there is nothing left.
42k net a year is a lot of money mind
Yes, if you don't mind running out in year 15. And it doesn't pay for a Porsche and champagne lifestyle which is what I'd call rich (and, for the avoidance of doubt, I couldn't afford and wouldn't want).
Everyone considers those richer than themselves rich, but not themselves.
If you're in a top percentile, then objectively you're rich. Subjectively though even Richard Branson could say he isn't, since he's poorer than Elon Musk.
Google suggests new Porsches start at about £50k. I'd guess the depreciation curve means that if you replace with brand new every three years, you're looking at £10k a year. That leaves you a mere £32k a year to split between the grocery shop and the bubbly - you should be able to have a fairly decent time on that.
a 718 will depreciate about 50% in 5 years, a 911 about 40% in the same time
just dont go mad with the options
a base model 911 is always the best value new porsche and a much more practical car than a 718 (which only exists to get people into a 911 as their next car)
Too many false assumptions there to know where to start, and I'm not prepared to go into how much money I or my children have. But it is non negligible, and estate planning has been done.
But it is non negligible, and estate planning has been done.
Exactly. I am very, very sure it has.
I am certain that all the affluent folk of pb.com have done their IHT sums
Or, in your case, have an accountant to do the sums because you seem to have been bottom of lower stream in Mathematics.
And that, folks, is why IHT does not work.
However, the swingeing property tax on @IshmaelZ Country Estate cannot be avoided.
Are you drunk?
If I had a country estate, which I haven't, it would be exempt as farmland anyway. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
Indeed -- there is agricultural relief for IHT.
Another reason why it is so difficult to get IHT to do its job.
I can see why you love IHT, it just doesn't work, so many exemptions for the rich !!
But, the point is my swingeing property tax won't have all these IHT loopholes that your clever accountant can exploit.
It will be 'Hey, @IshmaelZ, that country estate and property portfolio has just been valued at 10 mill.
The tax rate is 50 per cent. Hand over 5 mill to be distributed to the poor and worthy.
Job done.
You are drunk. Where this started was, I said iht was a tax easily avoided if, and only if, you are seriously rich, and you have got from that to "I love it." I'd have thought even you could see that that was a criticism of it, but obviously not.
1. We both agree that IHT is easily avoided, if you are seriously rich.
2. I then corrected your sums. You thought the threshold was 325k. I pointed out it was actually a million. IHT is now only paid by people with an estate over a million pounds.
3. So, IHT is only paid by the seriously rich.
4. We have already agreed that it can be easily avoided by the seriously rich.
So, the tax is feckin' ineffective.
If you wish to raise money from the rich, you tax property. Property can't be hidden.
Property can be given away to a family member, but then the tax is just transferred to the new owner and can't be avoided.
It is just much easier and efficient.
It is.
The problem is that for too many people property has ceased to be merely somewhere to live, and instead become something to form their wealth or income.
If you don't think a million pounds is rich then its easier to develop a property portfolio through which like a medieval baron you can extract rents in perpetuity.
Hence this has caused anticompetitive behaviours that lead people to try to rig the market to artificially inflate the value of their property portfolio as opposed to being happy to see their loved ones, friends, neighbours and grandchildren be able to get affordable homes to live in.
Social care fixed in one easy slogan: HMG to own the buildings. This would ease the costs of private sector care suppliers, equalise (more-or-less) costs between rich and poor parts of the country, and be cost-neutral for the government because it would have an asset worth whatever it paid for it, and probably appreciating with time.
Comments
I expect high house prices are probably bad news for fertility at a national level.
The average house price in London, the East and the South East is over £325,000 ie over 50% not 5%.
The only way you get to only 5% of estates being hit by IHT is with Osborne's tax free IHT allowance up to £1 million for married couples
You seem to be missing the residence nil-rate bands. So, it is not 325k.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-inheritance-tax-thresholds-and-interest-rates/inheritance-tax-thresholds-and-interest-rates
Try to keep up to date.
If you knew the evidence was rubbish why publish it? Why not use valid data to back up your argument?
You aren't arguing with others about salaries, you are arguing about house prices and you used wrong data to argue about house prices. Not a sole mentioned salaries in this current discussion. You are telling them they are wrong about house prices.
Nice move of goal posts.
Not least because my vice is the purchase of antiquarian books on science.
While whether you use the median house price or the mean house price London and the South East is still far higher than the North
This is just bonkers stuff. You don't get that even if you are right you do yourself no favours by arguing so irrationally.
The percentage of the threshold that was not used when the first partner died increases the basic threshold that’s available to their estate .
You'll get there ... eventually.
So rather than tediously trawling the internet to find the median price just to stop you being tediously pedantic at 11 03pm on a Tuesday evening I will continue to post the average house price as recorded on whichever housing website I happen to find
You were specifically arguing with several people about house prices in the S E and nothing else. Literally just that and nothing else. You quoted average prices and they pointed out you were wrong. Sorry but you are making stuff up now.
None continued the tedious beyond belief posts on averages you did
Full on Sharia Law returns to Afghanistan. But that's very last week.
Or maybe some algebraic topology -- no forget the latter.
So, now your argument is that if you have an estate in excess of a million pounds , you need to keep all the excess, because you might need it.
I am impressed.
What are you planning to do in your old age @IshmaelZ that needs so much money you can't give anything away to your family !
You have a serious drug habit? Or is it hookers? I know, its the fox-hunting. It is certainly not maths books.
* this may be shyte 😊
Considering we're talking about 1/20 originally, I suspect that wealth would put you in the top 5 percentile, yes.
Exactly. I am very, very sure it has.
I am certain that all the affluent folk of pb.com have done their IHT sums
Or, in your case, have an accountant to do the sums because you seem to have been bottom of lower stream in Mathematics.
And that, folks, is why IHT does not work.
However, the swingeing property tax on @IshmaelZ Country Estate cannot be avoided.
I think I'd class that as rich personally.
If I had a country estate, which I haven't, it would be exempt as farmland anyway. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
£42k takehome pay post-tax would still put you in a top percentile.
Another reason why it is so difficult to get IHT to do its job.
I can see why you love IHT, it just doesn't work, so many exemptions for the rich !!
But, the point is my swingeing property tax won't have all these IHT loopholes that your clever accountant can exploit.
It will be 'Hey, @IshmaelZ, that country estate and property portfolio has just been valued at 10 mill.
The tax rate is 50 per cent. Hand over 5 mill to be distributed to the poor and worthy.
Job done.
If you're in a top percentile, then objectively you're rich. Subjectively though even Richard Branson could say he isn't, since he's poorer than Elon Musk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dPzFUiY-tg&t=11s
That leaves you a mere £32k a year to split between the grocery shop and the bubbly - you should be able to have a fairly decent time on that.
1. We both agree that IHT is easily avoided, if you are seriously rich.
2. I then corrected your sums. You thought the threshold was 325k. I pointed out it was actually a million. IHT is now only paid by people with an estate over a million pounds.
3. So, IHT is only paid by the seriously rich.
4. We have already agreed that it can be easily avoided by the seriously rich.
So, the tax is feckin' ineffective.
If you wish to raise money from the rich, you tax property. Property can't be hidden.
Property can be given away to a family member, but then the tax is just transferred to the new owner and can't be avoided.
It is just much easier and efficient.
just dont go mad with the options
a base model 911 is always the best value new porsche and a much more practical car than a 718 (which only exists to get people into a 911 as their next car)
The problem is that for too many people property has ceased to be merely somewhere to live, and instead become something to form their wealth or income.
If you don't think a million pounds is rich then its easier to develop a property portfolio through which like a medieval baron you can extract rents in perpetuity.
Hence this has caused anticompetitive behaviours that lead people to try to rig the market to artificially inflate the value of their property portfolio as opposed to being happy to see their loved ones, friends, neighbours and grandchildren be able to get affordable homes to live in.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/07/the-soul-of-kabul-taliban-paint-over-murals-with-victory-slogans
(OK I know it's not just residential care but...)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-58483020
https://www.gbnews.uk/news/chancellor-rishi-sunak-confirms-date-for-autumn-budget/124905
That's a Wednesday.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/09/08/why-im-quitting-the-conservative-party/