BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 20,245
It wasn't a tax dodge, it was encouraged to enable you to save for your future and your families. What's so wrong in that? These rules don't just affect the super rich or rich whatever definition is. The IHT thresholds are now relatively low compared to how property prices have risen. It will affect many middle income earners more than the rich or super rich who will just avoid iHT altogether via other means.
Regardless this isnt about not providing for public services correctly, if you have read my posts you will undertand that It's about the fair distribution of that tax take and how that may affect or not the UKs future growth.
I notice that you and others have not commented on my issues with big business not paying their fair share and the missed opportunity that Reeves had to correct this? Can I ask why that is. Are you I'm favour of big business avoiding tax? Or is it that you just can't bring yourself to question anything a Labour government does.
There is nothing wrong in saving for your future or trying to provide for your children. Equally, money has to circulate and be released into the economy otherwise it becomes dead or unrealised money tied up in property and estates. IHT is designed to do that.
All businesses should pay their share, big or small. That big businesses can lobby more effectively to carve out breaks for themselves is wrong and should be resisted no matter who is in power and Labour can be castigated for pandering.