Budget 2024

[BobKowalski]

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.

 

[SWP's back]

Fewer than 2000 farms are affected by the IHT changes but - like school fees - people unaffected directly are persuaded by others that the sky in their unaffected world is falling in.

Big complainers are Clarkson - not a farmer but a TV personality who has a farm to use as a vehicle to film a show about himself - also bought a farm with the intention he could stick his money in there to AVOID IHT. Also gobbing off is Kirstie Allsopp who is not a farmer but is also a TV personality and probably by dint of background and birth stands to benefit from the proceeds of a farm upon the death of a relative

Also gobbing off are a huge amount of non tv personalities but the main thing is that none of this affects you so it’s not an issue.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

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.

Nice to conclude on some common ground, have a good day Bob!

 

[SWP's back]

But what about pension pot’s accumulated between spouses so for example both drawing pensions, one dies the other still gets that (although reduced) and they still have their own, then that one dies are both taken into consideration fir the kids?

You’re taking about defined benefit pensions if I’m right? (As opposed to personal pensions/SIPPs/Defined Contribution)

 

[stonerblue]

The increase in NI is obviously based on what’s going on now, what happens to all that when people start getting laid off as businesses possibly cut back.

Maybe the business could take a hit on their profits instead of passing costs onto the employee

 

[BobKowalski]

No argument from me on that front, but it goes hand in hand with economic growth. You certainly can't have the first without the second.

Why not? How much productivity and economic growth are you going to get out of an unhealthy population that is educated to a basic literacy level?

It’s like this notion that students should only study worthwhile subjects and not media studies or design courses or whatever. You know how much the arts and fashion generate for the country? Or health and beauty. All that pruning, preening and primping is a £45 billion industry and is largely immune to economic downturns.

I may have gone off on a tangent with that last point :)

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Sorry, I didn't mean pass on to our employees, I meant pass on the costs to our customers. We are actually hoping to increase our employees terms and wages to attract the best candidates. But our Finance team have said hold off for the time being until they can assess the impact of the budget.

One of the benefits of the budget will be supporting your current and future employee pool, education, health, better judicial system, creating better outcomes for the future of the nation.

 

[SWP's back]

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.

100%, they could have introduced many changes the tax regime that would fill any black hole and affect on those 1%’ers that literally wouldn’t notice (such as a higher rate of tax on income above x-million).

I happen to know a huge amount of families that will be caught out by the changes. And yes, they’ve already paid a fuck ton of tax to get to that position in the first place.

 

[inbetween]

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.

The whole big business tax thing is a bit of a misnomer. Amazon for example does not pay tax here so there is no tax to collect. When you buy something from Amazon you pay a company called Amazon EU S.à.r.l. which is domiciled in Luxembourg. In the end this is because Luxembourg granted Amazon a special tax status and the UK didn't.

The only way any anti big business tax would work is if it was levied internationally where there was no escape but that isn't going to happen. It has been talked up but has never worked and it will never work whilst tax havens exist and global companies are so easily able to change their jurisdiction.

This is just the consequence of living in a globalist economy. Other countries have resisted that economy somewhat or they have homegrown industries which won't move but the UK is becoming more globalist. We once built British cars for example whereas now we probably build more Japanese cars in the UK than British cars. Would we want to hit Toyota with further taxation at risk of them potentially moving their manufacturing elsewhere? Probably not.

 

[Damocles]

Fewer than 2000 farms are affected by the IHT changes but - like school fees - people unaffected directly are persuaded by others that the sky in their unaffected world is falling in.

Big complainers are Clarkson - not a farmer but a TV personality who has a farm to use as a vehicle to film a show about himself - also bought a farm with the intention he could stick his money in there to AVOID IHT. Also gobbing off is Kirstie Allsopp who is not a farmer but is also a TV personality and probably by dint of background and birth stands to benefit from the proceeds of a farm upon the death of a relative

He is a man who owns a farm, who works on a farm regularly, who makes money from his farm while producing goods and/or materials. He is by any and all useful definitions of the word, a farmer.

The National Farmers Union also called it "a disaster". The president of the Country Land and Business Association called it a "betrayal". Maybe they're also uneducated people following whispers when they'll be unaffected. They should have asked you first.

Oh and the Government estimate of only affecting 20,000 farms, and we all know how good Government estimates are no matter who is in charge, represents about 10% of the entire farming industry. I guess those guys can go fuck themselves though because it's "only" 20,000 farms.