You have to hope Burnham manages to file his Election Expenses within the statutory 35 days. All this money which we are led to believe is sloshing around on the right. Surely for someone who can give Nigel £5M or someone else some equally extravagant packet of small change it would be worth a few £10ks to go to the High Court and ask for a writ of undue election, just for the sheer hell of it.
Was the BBC Question Time lawful or not ? Did every candidate get exactly the same airtime - well clearly not as half of them weren't even invited ! Seems to me Fiona Bruce was not a fair arbitress.
I do think the peerage for the MP who stood aside would be very challengable. Seems to me he was offered an inducement to seek an office of profit under the Crown, not sure which one he took, but that would seem to be contrary to some very early eighteenth century legislation about malfeasance.
Your sour grapes would be better if your last paragraph had any merit. Josh Simons doesn't have a peerage.
It has been suggested Burnham will introduce a 10% IHT care levy on all estates
Seems a sensible suggestion but the entitled children of estates may kick and scream
Taxes on death are famously popular with voters.
A universal 10% inheritance tax would raise many billions more pounds than the current 40% inheritance tax, that most people with actual money do an awful lot to avoid.
Arthur Laffer was right.
You’re describing tax avoidance, not the Laffer effect. Common mistake.
Unless you’re suggesting rich people aren’t dying as a result of IHT?
Can you not use pejorative terms like 'tax avoidance' and use the neutral term 'tax minimisation strategies.'
If you implement a one week moratorium on links to the Telegraph we have a deal. The 0.01ppt movement in borrowing costs histrionics earlier today (and posted by some gullible PBer) was just ridiculous.
The Telegraph produces great comedy, who can forget the cyclist doing 50mph.
I've done 52 mph on a cycle no problem. You just need a high enough hill.
It has been suggested Burnham will introduce a 10% IHT care levy on all estates
Seems a sensible suggestion but the entitled children of estates may kick and scream
Taxes on death are famously popular with voters.
A universal 10% inheritance tax would raise many billions more pounds than the current 40% inheritance tax, that most people with actual money do an awful lot to avoid.
Arthur Laffer was right.
You’re describing tax avoidance, not the Laffer effect. Common mistake.
Unless you’re suggesting rich people aren’t dying as a result of IHT?
I’m simply saying that a flat 10% tax raises more money than the current 40% arrangements, which mostly hit the middle-classes in the South East who have little more in assets than their own house.
The wealthy spend a lot of effort in setting up trusts and making early gifts to children, that simply wouldn’t occur under a 10% IHT regime.
I don’t disagree - but I think it’s important to distinguish when a tax is undermined by [removed out of sensitivity to TSE], in contrast to when it deters an activity that’s good for the wider economy.
I don’t care at all if the only asset is your £1 million house. It’s just a variation on people whining about being cash poor - sell it, buy a cottage in Yorkshire for £200k and you’ve got £800k left for the pub, yacht and robo-lawnmower.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
Seems sensible but would it raise enough to compensate?
This campaign is pointless, may as well just finish nominations tomorrow
Congratulations for your prescient ramping of Burnham here at a time when it still appeared that there was not a credible route back for him and he was I think still beyond single figure odds. I now believe your claim to have a decent source.
Last year I did at least manage to get the timing of Starmer's exit date in the 3rd quarter of 2026 right, because it seemed obvious long ago that the May elections would catastrophic for Labour and thus the catalyst that set things in motion. So although my cash was on Rayner and Miliband I still managed a slight profit overall on the markets around Starmer's departure.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
Seems sensible but would it raise enough to compensate?
More than enough. You’d have up to £40 billion left over, depending on how house prices respond. And most people would get a substantial tax cut, particularly in Red Wall areas.
Council tax = £50 billion IHT = £8 billion 1% property = £100 billion at current prices
I’d do the rest abolishing Stsmp Duty (£15 billion) and on clearing the deficit.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
Seems sensible but would it raise enough to compensate?
It's Stamp Duty that needs to go - the plan we've always returned to was 1% property tax (and I think it's less than that) to replace both stamp duty and CT.
It has been suggested Burnham will introduce a 10% IHT care levy on all estates
Seems a sensible suggestion but the entitled children of estates may kick and scream
Taxes on death are famously popular with voters.
A universal 10% inheritance tax would raise many billions more pounds than the current 40% inheritance tax, that most people with actual money do an awful lot to avoid.
Arthur Laffer was right.
You’re describing tax avoidance, not the Laffer effect. Common mistake.
Unless you’re suggesting rich people aren’t dying as a result of IHT?
Can you not use pejorative terms like 'tax avoidance' and use the neutral term 'tax minimisation strategies.'
It’s another irregular verb. I minimise my tax. You tax avoid. He tax evades.
It has been suggested Burnham will introduce a 10% IHT care levy on all estates
Seems a sensible suggestion but the entitled children of estates may kick and scream
Taxes on death are famously popular with voters.
A universal 10% inheritance tax would raise many billions more pounds than the current 40% inheritance tax, that most people with actual money do an awful lot to avoid.
Arthur Laffer was right.
You’re describing tax avoidance, not the Laffer effect. Common mistake.
Unless you’re suggesting rich people aren’t dying as a result of IHT?
Can you not use pejorative terms like 'tax avoidance' and use the neutral term 'tax minimisation strategies.'
If you implement a one week moratorium on links to the Telegraph we have a deal. The 0.01ppt movement in borrowing costs histrionics earlier today (and posted by some gullible PBer) was just ridiculous.
The Telegraph produces great comedy, who can forget the cyclist doing 50mph.
I've done 52 mph on a cycle no problem. You just need a high enough hill.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
Seems sensible but would it raise enough to compensate?
More than enough. You’d have up to £40 billion left over, depending on how house prices respond. And most people would get a substantial tax cut, particularly in Red Wall areas.
Council tax = £50 billion IHT = £8 billion 1% property = £100 billion at current prices
I’d do the rest abolishing Stsmp Duty (£15 billion) and on clearing the deficit.
It'll be accompanied by tens of thousands of stories of cash poor asset rich people. Of course the centrists Dads of PB won't care, but pols will, as will journos, and most importantly regular people who 'know someone's Gran who had to sell their house and move into rented'.
You have to hope Burnham manages to file his Election Expenses within the statutory 35 days. All this money which we are led to believe is sloshing around on the right. Surely for someone who can give Nigel £5M or someone else some equally extravagant packet of small change it would be worth a few £10ks to go to the High Court and ask for a writ of undue election, just for the sheer hell of it.
Was the BBC Question Time lawful or not ? Did every candidate get exactly the same airtime - well clearly not as half of them weren't even invited ! Seems to me Fiona Bruce was not a fair arbitress.
I do think the peerage for the MP who stood aside would be very challengable. Seems to me he was offered an inducement to seek an office of profit under the Crown, not sure which one he took, but that would seem to be contrary to some very early eighteenth century legislation about malfeasance.
You talk an immense amount of crap.
I am guessing being from Cumbria I bet you've never heard of Viscount Whitelaw and David MacLean.
Do you know if they were prosecuted for malfeasance when the former triggered a by-election in Penrith and The Border in 1983 so they could get a peerage?
It has been suggested Burnham will introduce a 10% IHT care levy on all estates
Seems a sensible suggestion but the entitled children of estates may kick and scream
Taxes on death are famously popular with voters.
A universal 10% inheritance tax would raise many billions more pounds than the current 40% inheritance tax, that most people with actual money do an awful lot to avoid.
Arthur Laffer was right.
You’re describing tax avoidance, not the Laffer effect. Common mistake.
Unless you’re suggesting rich people aren’t dying as a result of IHT?
Can you not use pejorative terms like 'tax avoidance' and use the neutral term 'tax minimisation strategies.'
If you implement a one week moratorium on links to the Telegraph we have a deal. The 0.01ppt movement in borrowing costs histrionics earlier today (and posted by some gullible PBer) was just ridiculous.
The Telegraph produces great comedy, who can forget the cyclist doing 50mph.
I've done 52 mph on a cycle no problem. You just need a high enough hill.
Or cliff. Hint: you may only do 52mph once!
52 mph shows such lack of ambition when there's terminal velocity to be achieved!
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
Seems sensible but would it raise enough to compensate?
More than enough. You’d have up to £40 billion left over, depending on how house prices respond. And most people would get a substantial tax cut, particularly in Red Wall areas.
Council tax = £50 billion IHT = £8 billion 1% property = £100 billion at current prices
I’d do the rest abolishing Stsmp Duty (£15 billion) and on clearing the deficit.
It'll be accompanied by tens of thousands of stories of cash poor asset rich people. Of course the centrists Dads of PB won't care, but pols will, as will journos, and most importantly regular people who 'know someone's Gran who had to sell their house and move into rented'.
Not really. Compare 1% to your council tax bill. I have a rough model that suggests a large majority of people will get a tax cut - I’d get 20% off.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
Seems sensible but would it raise enough to compensate?
More than enough. You’d have up to £40 billion left over, depending on how house prices respond. And most people would get a substantial tax cut, particularly in Red Wall areas.
Council tax = £50 billion IHT = £8 billion 1% property = £100 billion at current prices
I’d do the rest abolishing Stsmp Duty (£15 billion) and on clearing the deficit.
It'll be accompanied by tens of thousands of stories of cash poor asset rich people. Of course the centrists Dads of PB won't care, but pols will, as will journos, and most importantly regular people who 'know someone's Gran who had to sell their house and move into rented'.
Not really. Compare 1% to your council tax bill. I have a rough model that suggests a large majority of people will get a tax cut - I’d get 20% off.
Mine would double - and I've just paid a stamp duty bill too.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
Seems sensible but would it raise enough to compensate?
More than enough. You’d have up to £40 billion left over, depending on how house prices respond. And most people would get a substantial tax cut, particularly in Red Wall areas.
Council tax = £50 billion IHT = £8 billion 1% property = £100 billion at current prices
I’d do the rest abolishing Stsmp Duty (£15 billion) and on clearing the deficit.
It'll be accompanied by tens of thousands of stories of cash poor asset rich people. Of course the centrists Dads of PB won't care, but pols will, as will journos, and most importantly regular people who 'know someone's Gran who had to sell their house and move into rented'.
Not really. Compare 1% to your council tax bill. I have a rough model that suggests a large majority of people will get a tax cut - I’d get 20% off.
Mine would double - and I've just paid a stamp duty bill too.
And most importantly, lots of JOURNALIST'S taxes would go up biggly.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
Seems sensible but would it raise enough to compensate?
More than enough. You’d have up to £40 billion left over, depending on how house prices respond. And most people would get a substantial tax cut, particularly in Red Wall areas.
Council tax = £50 billion IHT = £8 billion 1% property = £100 billion at current prices
I’d do the rest abolishing Stsmp Duty (£15 billion) and on clearing the deficit.
It'll be accompanied by tens of thousands of stories of cash poor asset rich people. Of course the centrists Dads of PB won't care, but pols will, as will journos, and most importantly regular people who 'know someone's Gran who had to sell their house and move into rented'.
Not really. Compare 1% to your council tax bill. I have a rough model that suggests a large majority of people will get a tax cut - I’d get 20% off.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
Seems sensible but would it raise enough to compensate?
More than enough. You’d have up to £40 billion left over, depending on how house prices respond. And most people would get a substantial tax cut, particularly in Red Wall areas.
Council tax = £50 billion IHT = £8 billion 1% property = £100 billion at current prices
I’d do the rest abolishing Stsmp Duty (£15 billion) and on clearing the deficit.
It'll be accompanied by tens of thousands of stories of cash poor asset rich people. Of course the centrists Dads of PB won't care, but pols will, as will journos, and most importantly regular people who 'know someone's Gran who had to sell their house and move into rented'.
Not really. Compare 1% to your council tax bill. I have a rough model that suggests a large majority of people will get a tax cut - I’d get 20% off.
Is be 3k worse off
This might not be the best forum to seek examples.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
It has been suggested Burnham will introduce a 10% IHT care levy on all estates
Seems a sensible suggestion but the entitled children of estates may kick and scream
Taxes on death are famously popular with voters.
A universal 10% inheritance tax would raise many billions more pounds than the current 40% inheritance tax, that most people with actual money do an awful lot to avoid.
Arthur Laffer was right.
You’re describing tax avoidance, not the Laffer effect. Common mistake.
Unless you’re suggesting rich people aren’t dying as a result of IHT?
Can you not use pejorative terms like 'tax avoidance' and use the neutral term 'tax minimisation strategies.'
If you implement a one week moratorium on links to the Telegraph we have a deal. The 0.01ppt movement in borrowing costs histrionics earlier today (and posted by some gullible PBer) was just ridiculous.
The Telegraph produces great comedy, who can forget the cyclist doing 50mph.
I've done 52 mph on a cycle no problem. You just need a high enough hill.
Or cliff. Hint: you may only do 52mph once!
Could manage it (briefly) twice - once during the acceleration phase and once, very briefly, during the rapid deceleration phase.
It has been suggested Burnham will introduce a 10% IHT care levy on all estates
Seems a sensible suggestion but the entitled children of estates may kick and scream
Taxes on death are famously popular with voters.
A universal 10% inheritance tax would raise many billions more pounds than the current 40% inheritance tax, that most people with actual money do an awful lot to avoid.
Arthur Laffer was right.
You’re describing tax avoidance, not the Laffer effect. Common mistake.
Unless you’re suggesting rich people aren’t dying as a result of IHT?
Can you not use pejorative terms like 'tax avoidance' and use the neutral term 'tax minimisation strategies.'
If you implement a one week moratorium on links to the Telegraph we have a deal. The 0.01ppt movement in borrowing costs histrionics earlier today (and posted by some gullible PBer) was just ridiculous.
The Telegraph produces great comedy, who can forget the cyclist doing 50mph.
I've done 52 mph on a cycle no problem. You just need a high enough hill.
Or cliff. Hint: you may only do 52mph once!
52 mph shows such lack of ambition when there's terminal velocity to be achieved!
I've done 50mph on a bike but not for a while. Speed wobbles when descending into Hawes put me off that a bit...
"The Football Association will not issue guidance to the England squad over whether to shake hands with the Ghanaian player Thomas Partey, who has been charged with seven counts of rape, ITV News understands. England are due to meet Ghana in their second World Cup match in Boston at 9pm BST on Tuesday."
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
Seems sensible but would it raise enough to compensate?
More than enough. You’d have up to £40 billion left over, depending on how house prices respond. And most people would get a substantial tax cut, particularly in Red Wall areas.
Council tax = £50 billion IHT = £8 billion 1% property = £100 billion at current prices
I’d do the rest abolishing Stsmp Duty (£15 billion) and on clearing the deficit.
It'll be accompanied by tens of thousands of stories of cash poor asset rich people. Of course the centrists Dads of PB won't care, but pols will, as will journos, and most importantly regular people who 'know someone's Gran who had to sell their house and move into rented'.
This campaign is pointless, may as well just finish nominations tomorrow
Congratulations for your prescient ramping of Burnham here at a time when it still appeared that there was not a credible route back for him and he was I think still beyond single figure odds. I now believe your claim to have a decent source.
Last year I did at least manage to get the timing of Starmer's exit date in the 3rd quarter of 2026 right, because it seemed obvious long ago that the May elections would catastrophic for Labour and thus the catalyst that set things in motion. So although my cash was on Rayner and Miliband I still managed a slight profit overall on the markets around Starmer's departure.
Thanks. They seemed to be very accurate on Starmer’s thinking (especially that he would never fight a leadership election) and that Burnham was likely to become the next PM on the basis he’d be able to secure a seat. And my friend was also very early on a “coronation”.
I got on him at 3.25, so probably should have put my money on him earlier although I wasn’t 100% confident in my friend either. But I’ve still made a decent profit assuming he doesn’t somehow now not become the PM.
I was never convinced Rayner would run. And indeed she won’t.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
Seems sensible but would it raise enough to compensate?
More than enough. You’d have up to £40 billion left over, depending on how house prices respond. And most people would get a substantial tax cut, particularly in Red Wall areas.
Council tax = £50 billion IHT = £8 billion 1% property = £100 billion at current prices
I’d do the rest abolishing Stsmp Duty (£15 billion) and on clearing the deficit.
It'll be accompanied by tens of thousands of stories of cash poor asset rich people. Of course the centrists Dads of PB won't care, but pols will, as will journos, and most importantly regular people who 'know someone's Gran who had to sell their house and move into rented'.
Not really. Compare 1% to your council tax bill. I have a rough model that suggests a large majority of people will get a tax cut - I’d get 20% off.
Mine would double - and I've just paid a stamp duty bill too.
The fairest way to transition, would be on the sale of property at the price paid. But that would leave a huge hole from the lack of SDLT in the first few years.
It just shows that you can never predict anything with politics especially in recent years .
But Starmer and Reeves managed to start kicking the foundations away when they decided to burn so much political capital on one of the biggest political own goals of all time.
Quite how neither saw the utter stupidity of the WFA decision is beyond me !
And you can trace back to the implosion in Starmers approval ratings from there .
That's easy to argue with hindsight. But at the time, the state pension had risen by quite a lot (around £800 in the previous year, I think), and they didn't foresee that there'd be such a negative reaction to the withdrawal of a couple of hundred quid WFA. And, to be honest, I can't quite see why it provoked the visceral reaction it did, including from people who are keen to abandon the triple lock.
It got a visceral reaction because “freezing grannies” is easy to understand by everyone and no amount of (perfectly accurate) stating that other things have gone up by (fill in exact percentage to two decimal points) is going to challenge that narrative at the water cooler at work. or down the Lamb and Flag on a Friday night. That and it being the first act of note from a (channels inner Neil Kinnock circa1985 ) Labour, a Labour govt.
Why not just tax it at normal rates? Poor granny keeps it all, middling granny only loses 20% well off granny loses 40% and maybe it could’ve been phased out for 45% granny who was probably spending in Antigua in February anyway. Probably would’ve raised about as much as they ended up doing anyway once all clawbacks and u turns were done and dusted.
It just shows that you can never predict anything with politics especially in recent years .
But Starmer and Reeves managed to start kicking the foundations away when they decided to burn so much political capital on one of the biggest political own goals of all time.
Quite how neither saw the utter stupidity of the WFA decision is beyond me !
And you can trace back to the implosion in Starmers approval ratings from there .
That's easy to argue with hindsight. But at the time, the state pension had risen by quite a lot (around £800 in the previous year, I think), and they didn't foresee that there'd be such a negative reaction to the withdrawal of a couple of hundred quid WFA. And, to be honest, I can't quite see why it provoked the visceral reaction it did, including from people who are keen to abandon the triple lock.
It got a visceral reaction because “freezing grannies” is easy to understand by everyone and no amount of (perfectly accurate) stating that other things have gone up by (fill in exact percentage to two decimal points) is going to challenge that narrative at the water cooler at work. or down the Lamb and Flag on a Friday night. That and it being the first act of note from a (channels inner Neil Kinnock circa1985 ) Labour, a Labour govt.
Why not just tax it at normal rates? Poor granny keeps it all, middling granny only loses 20% well off granny loses 40% and maybe it could’ve been phased out for 45% granny who was probably spending in Antigua in February anyway. Probably would’ve raised about as much as they ended up doing anyway once all clawbacks and u turns were done and dusted.
FPT: Somewhat to my surprise, Seattle has done reasonably well, hosting its part of the World Cup.
Some of the success is because of that common desire to impress visitors. So, for example, the mayor of Seattle, Katie Wilson, was talked into allowing some security camras to be turned on, shortly before visitors began arriving, and is now advocating efforts at reducing open air drug use in notorious hot spots.
And, until today, we have been lucky in the weather here, but the weather forecasters are predicting hot weather for Wednesday, and possible cool rain for Friday.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
Seems sensible but would it raise enough to compensate?
More than enough. You’d have up to £40 billion left over, depending on how house prices respond. And most people would get a substantial tax cut, particularly in Red Wall areas.
Council tax = £50 billion IHT = £8 billion 1% property = £100 billion at current prices
I’d do the rest abolishing Stsmp Duty (£15 billion) and on clearing the deficit.
It'll be accompanied by tens of thousands of stories of cash poor asset rich people. Of course the centrists Dads of PB won't care, but pols will, as will journos, and most importantly regular people who 'know someone's Gran who had to sell their house and move into rented'.
Not really. Compare 1% to your council tax bill. I have a rough model that suggests a large majority of people will get a tax cut - I’d get 20% off.
Is be 3k worse off
This might not be the best forum to seek examples.
Also worse for us, but we're benefitting from the whole council-tax-only-gets-revalued-routinely-on-sale-even-if-you've-doubled-the-size-of-your-house thing. So I couldn't really complain.
"The Football Association will not issue guidance to the England squad over whether to shake hands with the Ghanaian player Thomas Partey, who has been charged with seven counts of rape, ITV News understands. England are due to meet Ghana in their second World Cup match in Boston at 9pm BST on Tuesday."
FPT: Somewhat to my surprise, Seattle has done reasonably well, hosting its part of the World Cup.
Some of the success is because of that common desire to impress visitors. So, for example, the mayor of Seattle, Katie Wilson, was talked into allowing some security camras to be turned on, shortly before visitors began arriving, and is now advocating efforts at reducing open air drug use in notorious hot spots.
And, until today, we have been lucky in the weather here, but the weather forecasters are predicting hot weather for Wednesday, and possible cool rain for Friday.
FPT: Somewhat to my surprise, Seattle has done reasonably well, hosting its part of the World Cup.
Some of the success is because of that common desire to impress visitors. So, for example, the mayor of Seattle, Katie Wilson, was talked into allowing some security camras to be turned on, shortly before visitors began arriving, and is now advocating efforts at reducing open air drug use in notorious hot spots.
And, until today, we have been lucky in the weather here, but the weather forecasters are predicting hot weather for Wednesday, and possible cool rain for Friday.
Following from literally half a world away, the US is producing a great advert for itself at the moment.
Whether it’s the large groups of fans taking over the match cities, or the numerous Europeans doing once-in-a-lifetime road trips, everyone seems to be having a massive party. The Scots drinking Boston almost out of beer is possibly the highlight so far, along with the German fan Freddy who’s running around the South being offered serious hospitality by local celebrities.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
Seems sensible but would it raise enough to compensate?
More than enough. You’d have up to £40 billion left over, depending on how house prices respond. And most people would get a substantial tax cut, particularly in Red Wall areas.
Council tax = £50 billion IHT = £8 billion 1% property = £100 billion at current prices
I’d do the rest abolishing Stsmp Duty (£15 billion) and on clearing the deficit.
It'll be accompanied by tens of thousands of stories of cash poor asset rich people. Of course the centrists Dads of PB won't care, but pols will, as will journos, and most importantly regular people who 'know someone's Gran who had to sell their house and move into rented'.
It shouldn't be too complicated to permit deferred tax payments and create a charge on the property that accrued interest as well. For the cash poor property rich.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
Seems sensible but would it raise enough to compensate?
More than enough. You’d have up to £40 billion left over, depending on how house prices respond. And most people would get a substantial tax cut, particularly in Red Wall areas.
Council tax = £50 billion IHT = £8 billion 1% property = £100 billion at current prices
I’d do the rest abolishing Stsmp Duty (£15 billion) and on clearing the deficit.
It'll be accompanied by tens of thousands of stories of cash poor asset rich people. Of course the centrists Dads of PB won't care, but pols will, as will journos, and most importantly regular people who 'know someone's Gran who had to sell their house and move into rented'.
It shouldn't be too complicated to permit deferred tax payments and create a charge on the property that accrued interest as well. For the cash poor property rich.
It just shows that you can never predict anything with politics especially in recent years .
But Starmer and Reeves managed to start kicking the foundations away when they decided to burn so much political capital on one of the biggest political own goals of all time.
Quite how neither saw the utter stupidity of the WFA decision is beyond me !
And you can trace back to the implosion in Starmers approval ratings from there .
That's easy to argue with hindsight. But at the time, the state pension had risen by quite a lot (around £800 in the previous year, I think), and they didn't foresee that there'd be such a negative reaction to the withdrawal of a couple of hundred quid WFA. And, to be honest, I can't quite see why it provoked the visceral reaction it did, including from people who are keen to abandon the triple lock.
It got a visceral reaction because “freezing grannies” is easy to understand by everyone and no amount of (perfectly accurate) stating that other things have gone up by (fill in exact percentage to two decimal points) is going to challenge that narrative at the water cooler at work. or down the Lamb and Flag on a Friday night. That and it being the first act of note from a (channels inner Neil Kinnock circa1985 ) Labour, a Labour govt.
Why not just tax it at normal rates? Poor granny keeps it all, middling granny only loses 20% well off granny loses 40% and maybe it could’ve been phased out for 45% granny who was probably spending in Antigua in February anyway. Probably would’ve raised about as much as they ended up doing anyway once all clawbacks and u turns were done and dusted.
Completely politically clueless.
As I keep saying
1) Identify issues 2) Come up with a Labour adjacent policy to deal with issue
Labour MPs and members are going to get the pom-poms out for cutting welfare. But offer them :"We will target more money on the poor, and take it off those who are on £50K plus income" - and they might even smile.
Similarly - illegal immigration. Expelling people on charted planes - not popular. Go after the companies and the criminal gangs who exploit illegal workers - and add in defending minimum wage and working conditions. You'll have the unions coming round to sing the Red Flag.
"The Football Association will not issue guidance to the England squad over whether to shake hands with the Ghanaian player Thomas Partey, who has been charged with seven counts of rape, ITV News understands. England are due to meet Ghana in their second World Cup match in Boston at 9pm BST on Tuesday."
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
Seems sensible but would it raise enough to compensate?
More than enough. You’d have up to £40 billion left over, depending on how house prices respond. And most people would get a substantial tax cut, particularly in Red Wall areas.
Council tax = £50 billion IHT = £8 billion 1% property = £100 billion at current prices
I’d do the rest abolishing Stsmp Duty (£15 billion) and on clearing the deficit.
It'll be accompanied by tens of thousands of stories of cash poor asset rich people. Of course the centrists Dads of PB won't care, but pols will, as will journos, and most importantly regular people who 'know someone's Gran who had to sell their house and move into rented'.
It shouldn't be too complicated to permit deferred tax payments and create a charge on the property that accrued interest as well. For the cash poor property rich.
At least as a transition measure.
I thought that was already done for care costs.
Apparently, a large number of homes are now "blocked" from being taken by councils for care costs, by children moving back in with the parents. And establishing habitation rights.
"The Football Association will not issue guidance to the England squad over whether to shake hands with the Ghanaian player Thomas Partey, who has been charged with seven counts of rape, ITV News understands. England are due to meet Ghana in their second World Cup match in Boston at 9pm BST on Tuesday."
The whole “innocent until found guilty” seems to apply selectively these days. Best just to carry out the formalities and not make a judgement.
That's a criminal legal judgement. There is also, in a number of jurisdictions, the civil case standard of proof. Then you have "he's a nasty shit, but he isn't a criminal".
The idea that, until someone is legally proven to the criminal case standard, they must be treated as completely innocent is actually a very new idea.
It just shows that you can never predict anything with politics especially in recent years .
But Starmer and Reeves managed to start kicking the foundations away when they decided to burn so much political capital on one of the biggest political own goals of all time.
Quite how neither saw the utter stupidity of the WFA decision is beyond me !
And you can trace back to the implosion in Starmers approval ratings from there .
That's easy to argue with hindsight. But at the time, the state pension had risen by quite a lot (around £800 in the previous year, I think), and they didn't foresee that there'd be such a negative reaction to the withdrawal of a couple of hundred quid WFA. And, to be honest, I can't quite see why it provoked the visceral reaction it did, including from people who are keen to abandon the triple lock.
It got a visceral reaction because “freezing grannies” is easy to understand by everyone and no amount of (perfectly accurate) stating that other things have gone up by (fill in exact percentage to two decimal points) is going to challenge that narrative at the water cooler at work. or down the Lamb and Flag on a Friday night. That and it being the first act of note from a (channels inner Neil Kinnock circa1985 ) Labour, a Labour govt.
Why not just tax it at normal rates? Poor granny keeps it all, middling granny only loses 20% well off granny loses 40% and maybe it could’ve been phased out for 45% granny who was probably spending in Antigua in February anyway. Probably would’ve raised about as much as they ended up doing anyway once all clawbacks and u turns were done and dusted.
Completely politically clueless.
As I keep saying
1) Identify issues 2) Come up with a Labour adjacent policy to deal with issue
Labour MPs and members are going to get the pom-poms out for cutting welfare. But offer them :"We will target more money on the poor, and take it off those who are on £50K plus income" - and they might even smile.
Similarly - illegal immigration. Expelling people on charted planes - not popular. Go after the companies and the criminal gangs who exploit illegal workers - and add in defending minimum wage and working conditions. You'll have the unions coming round to sing the Red Flag.
Can I be Labour leader, please?
That was Keir’s biggest problem, he simply couldn’t sell his policies to his own party. It’s not difficult to come up with the right left language both for the news and for the MPs.
It just shows that you can never predict anything with politics especially in recent years .
But Starmer and Reeves managed to start kicking the foundations away when they decided to burn so much political capital on one of the biggest political own goals of all time.
Quite how neither saw the utter stupidity of the WFA decision is beyond me !
And you can trace back to the implosion in Starmers approval ratings from there .
That's easy to argue with hindsight. But at the time, the state pension had risen by quite a lot (around £800 in the previous year, I think), and they didn't foresee that there'd be such a negative reaction to the withdrawal of a couple of hundred quid WFA. And, to be honest, I can't quite see why it provoked the visceral reaction it did, including from people who are keen to abandon the triple lock.
It got a visceral reaction because “freezing grannies” is easy to understand by everyone and no amount of (perfectly accurate) stating that other things have gone up by (fill in exact percentage to two decimal points) is going to challenge that narrative at the water cooler at work. or down the Lamb and Flag on a Friday night. That and it being the first act of note from a (channels inner Neil Kinnock circa1985 ) Labour, a Labour govt.
Why not just tax it at normal rates? Poor granny keeps it all, middling granny only loses 20% well off granny loses 40% and maybe it could’ve been phased out for 45% granny who was probably spending in Antigua in February anyway. Probably would’ve raised about as much as they ended up doing anyway once all clawbacks and u turns were done and dusted.
Completely politically clueless.
As I keep saying
1) Identify issues 2) Come up with a Labour adjacent policy to deal with issue
Labour MPs and members are going to get the pom-poms out for cutting welfare. But offer them :"We will target more money on the poor, and take it off those who are on £50K plus income" - and they might even smile.
Similarly - illegal immigration. Expelling people on charted planes - not popular. Go after the companies and the criminal gangs who exploit illegal workers - and add in defending minimum wage and working conditions. You'll have the unions coming round to sing the Red Flag.
Can I be Labour leader, please?
That was Keir’s biggest problem, he simply couldn’t sell his policies to his own party. It’s not difficult to come up with the right left language both for the news and for the MPs.
His problem was that he was trying to sell policies that were antithetical to much of Labour.
And that's the problem with the "Right Wing Media" thesis. Many Labour voters have moved to the The Hyper Right Wing Neon Nazi Imperialist Party... The Greens.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
Seems sensible but would it raise enough to compensate?
More than enough. You’d have up to £40 billion left over, depending on how house prices respond. And most people would get a substantial tax cut, particularly in Red Wall areas.
Council tax = £50 billion IHT = £8 billion 1% property = £100 billion at current prices
I’d do the rest abolishing Stsmp Duty (£15 billion) and on clearing the deficit.
It'll be accompanied by tens of thousands of stories of cash poor asset rich people. Of course the centrists Dads of PB won't care, but pols will, as will journos, and most importantly regular people who 'know someone's Gran who had to sell their house and move into rented'.
It shouldn't be too complicated to permit deferred tax payments and create a charge on the property that accrued interest as well. For the cash poor property rich.
At least as a transition measure.
I thought that was already done for care costs.
It is.
My mother in law spent 4 years in a care home, well looked after and happy in return for her state pension and a small private pension and a 10k charge on her property for each of the 4 years
Her son and daughter in law who was a gobshite wanted to sell the house, had they done she'd have died as all the money ran out.
I'd done a quick calculation that the amount of the charge was very similar to house price inflation.
I'd explained that if he assumed that 50% of the value was his inheritance based on the day she went in to care, and he'd get that sum 5 years later but not the proceeds of the house inflation, he still didn't get it.
He collared exactly what he would have done on 2018 values when she passed in 2022. Better than coughing up the lot of he'd sold
It's a scheme that coukd be easily adapted and extended.
"The Football Association will not issue guidance to the England squad over whether to shake hands with the Ghanaian player Thomas Partey, who has been charged with seven counts of rape, ITV News understands. England are due to meet Ghana in their second World Cup match in Boston at 9pm BST on Tuesday."
This campaign is pointless, may as well just finish nominations tomorrow
100% agree. All the delay does is give valuable political space and airtime to the likes of Lowe, Farage and Polanski.
Whilst I agree the delay is pointless let's have some perspective, a week or two won't make any appreciable difference even in this 24hr news cycle age.
It has been suggested Burnham will introduce a 10% IHT care levy on all estates
Seems a sensible suggestion but the entitled children of estates may kick and scream
Taxes on death are famously popular with voters.
A universal 10% inheritance tax would raise many billions more pounds than the current 40% inheritance tax, that most people with actual money do an awful lot to avoid.
Arthur Laffer was right.
You’re describing tax avoidance, not the Laffer effect. Common mistake.
Unless you’re suggesting rich people aren’t dying as a result of IHT?
Can you not use pejorative terms like 'tax avoidance' and use the neutral term 'tax minimisation strategies.'
If you implement a one week moratorium on links to the Telegraph we have a deal. The 0.01ppt movement in borrowing costs histrionics earlier today (and posted by some gullible PBer) was just ridiculous.
The Telegraph produces great comedy, who can forget the cyclist doing 50mph.
I've done 52 mph on a cycle no problem. You just need a high enough hill.
Or cliff. Hint: you may only do 52mph once!
52 mph shows such lack of ambition when there's terminal velocity to be achieved!
I've done 50mph on a bike but not for a while. Speed wobbles when descending into Hawes put me off that a bit...
Just to clarify: my understanding is that a Burnham proposes to scrap the current IHT and replace it with a flat 10% rate with far fewer exemptions.
So really not red meat for the left. Actually good news mainly for the well off.
Yep. Very bad for the vast majority of people who don't currently pay any IHT but very good for the wealthiest in society. Not exactly great left wing policies and certainly not good for re-election prospects.
"The Football Association will not issue guidance to the England squad over whether to shake hands with the Ghanaian player Thomas Partey, who has been charged with seven counts of rape, ITV News understands. England are due to meet Ghana in their second World Cup match in Boston at 9pm BST on Tuesday."
Bizarrely he's been refused a visa to Canada but not the US.
He may have been banned in Canada anyway, but "The ruling revealed that when applying for a temporary resident visa, Partey answered "No" when asked whether he had been arrested, charged with, or committed a criminal offence." I suspect it was the relevant FA that filled in the forms.
Just to clarify: my understanding is that a Burnham proposes to scrap the current IHT and replace it with a flat 10% rate with far fewer exemptions.
So really not red meat for the left. Actually good news mainly for the well off.
Yep. Very bad for the vast majority of people who don't currently pay any IHT but very good for the wealthiest in society. Not exactly great left wing policies and certainly not good for re-election prospects.
If they can make it work so that it frees up huge amounts of council tax to actually provide local services, on the other hand, then every Labour MP can point to the filled potholes, new buses, and clean town centres at the next election.
Just to clarify: my understanding is that a Burnham proposes to scrap the current IHT and replace it with a flat 10% rate with far fewer exemptions.
So really not red meat for the left. Actually good news mainly for the well off.
Yep. Very bad for the vast majority of people who don't currently pay any IHT but very good for the wealthiest in society. Not exactly great left wing policies and certainly not good for re-election prospects.
The really wealth avoid IHT, its middle class people who are most subjected to it
Comments
Then just get on with booking the removsals van.
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2069064123162239162
I don’t care at all if the only asset is your £1 million house. It’s just a variation on people whining about being cash poor - sell it, buy a cottage in Yorkshire for £200k and you’ve got £800k left for the pub, yacht and robo-lawnmower.
Last year I did at least manage to get the timing of Starmer's exit date in the 3rd quarter of 2026 right, because it seemed obvious long ago that the May elections would catastrophic for Labour and thus the catalyst that set things in motion. So although my cash was on Rayner and Miliband I still managed a slight profit overall on the markets around Starmer's departure.
Council tax = £50 billion
IHT = £8 billion
1% property = £100 billion at current prices
I’d do the rest abolishing Stsmp Duty (£15 billion) and on clearing the deficit.
If it also needs to cover IHT that's extra.
https://x.com/royalmail/status/2069036565301485961
Are you moving house…?
I minimise my tax.
You tax avoid.
He tax evades.
I am guessing being from Cumbria I bet you've never heard of Viscount Whitelaw and David MacLean.
Do you know if they were prosecuted for malfeasance when the former triggered a by-election in Penrith and The Border in 1983 so they could get a peerage?
Also Josh Simons isn't a peer.
He's a bit of an arsehole at times.
I once saw him see a mouse, and he just started playing on his back.
😎
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
Best left to Tom Pidcock et al.
https://www.itv.com/news/2026-06-22/will-england-players-shake-thomas-parteys-hand-at-their-match-against-ghana
I got on him at 3.25, so probably should have put my money on him earlier although I wasn’t 100% confident in my friend either. But I’ve still made a decent profit assuming he doesn’t somehow now not become the PM.
I was never convinced Rayner would run. And indeed she won’t.
Why not just tax it at normal rates? Poor granny keeps it all, middling granny only loses 20% well off granny loses 40% and maybe it could’ve been phased out for 45% granny who was probably spending in Antigua in February anyway. Probably would’ve raised about as much as they ended up doing anyway once all clawbacks and u turns were done and dusted.
Completely politically clueless.
Why not just tax it at normal rates? Poor granny keeps it all, middling granny only loses 20% well off granny loses 40% and maybe it could’ve been phased out for 45% granny who was probably spending in Antigua in February anyway. Probably would’ve raised about as much as they ended up doing anyway once all clawbacks and u turns were done and dusted.
Completely politically clueless.
Starmer exit Q2 2026 - £30 thanks to TSE
Burnham next PM - £80
Labour to win Makerfield - £40
Burnham next PM - £81.25 (cashed out earlier)
Keir Starmer exit 2026 - £35.99
Some of the success is because of that common desire to impress visitors. So, for example, the mayor of Seattle, Katie Wilson, was talked into allowing some security camras to be turned on, shortly before visitors began arriving, and is now advocating efforts at reducing open air drug use in notorious hot spots.
And, until today, we have been lucky in the weather here, but the weather forecasters are predicting hot weather for Wednesday, and possible cool rain for Friday.
So, in minor celebration, here's a rotating webcam from on top of Seattle's best-known landmark:
https://www.spaceneedle.com/webcam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Wilson
Whether it’s the large groups of fans taking over the match cities, or the numerous Europeans doing once-in-a-lifetime road trips, everyone seems to be having a massive party. The Scots drinking Boston almost out of beer is possibly the highlight so far, along with the German fan Freddy who’s running around the South being offered serious hospitality by local celebrities.
At least as a transition measure.
"Hands up if you've ever run a business."
https://x.com/burnsidewastosh/status/2069091025977589885
Pathetic cowards
1) Identify issues
2) Come up with a Labour adjacent policy to deal with issue
Labour MPs and members are going to get the pom-poms out for cutting welfare. But offer them :"We will target more money on the poor, and take it off those who are on £50K plus income" - and they might even smile.
Similarly - illegal immigration. Expelling people on charted planes - not popular. Go after the companies and the criminal gangs who exploit illegal workers - and add in defending minimum wage and working conditions. You'll have the unions coming round to sing the Red Flag.
Can I be Labour leader, please?
The idea that, until someone is legally proven to the criminal case standard, they must be treated as completely innocent is actually a very new idea.
And that's the problem with the "Right Wing Media" thesis. Many Labour voters have moved to the The Hyper Right Wing Neon Nazi Imperialist Party... The Greens.
Downing Street is Coronation Street.
When does the King meet the King
Tory MP: “He’s not the Messiah”
Burnham: “Naughty boy”M
Burnham the Bantersaurus Rex
*checks odds of England victory*
My mother in law spent 4 years in a care home, well looked after and happy in return for her state pension and a small private pension and a 10k charge on her property for each of the 4 years
Her son and daughter in law who was a gobshite wanted to sell the house, had they done she'd have died as all the money ran out.
I'd done a quick calculation that the amount of the charge was very similar to house price inflation.
I'd explained that if he assumed that 50% of the value was his inheritance based on the day she went in to care, and he'd get that sum 5 years later but not the proceeds of the house inflation, he still didn't get it.
He collared exactly what he would have done on 2018 values when she passed in 2022. Better than coughing up the lot of he'd sold
It's a scheme that coukd be easily adapted and extended.
https://x.com/sorelle_arduino/status/2065728803356193057
https://x.com/algorecrave/status/2069026389685137461
Interesting pose.
So really not red meat for the left. Actually good news mainly for the well off.
true your rims
I suspect it was the relevant FA that filled in the forms.
https://x.com/andyburnhamgm/status/838883169180995584
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sovereign_Individual