Budget 2024

  • Thread starter Thread starter ganganvince
  • Start date Start date
Churchlawtonblue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bluethrunthru said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
BobKowalski said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nice to conclude on some common ground, have a good day Bob!
 
Blue Maverick said:
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?
Click to expand...
You’re taking about defined benefit pensions if I’m right? (As opposed to personal pensions/SIPPs/Defined Contribution)
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Churchlawtonblue said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
bluethrunthru said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Blue Maverick said:
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.
Click to expand...

No business wants to harm its productivity or lose customers because it doesn’t have the employee numbers to service its customer base. You get these arguments every time tax rates are hiked.

Businesses value a stable economy and certainty more than a point or two on the tax rate. Last few years with Johnson, Truss and Brexit have torched a lot of that stability and certainty. Labour needs to provide that stability and certainty as much as anything else.
 
Damocles said:
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". Maybe they're also uneducated people following whispers when they'll unaffected. They should have asked you first.
Click to expand...
It's a great programme but let's face it though Clarkson bought that farm over 15 years ago and previously employed a farmer to run it. Why would he do that if he really just wanted to become a farmer himself?

The whole farmer thing was an opportunity that presented itself because he had a farm and he had a TV company eating out of his hands plus the whole grand tour format was sort of running its course.

I'd love to know how much he earnt from that series because he clearly earnt nothing from running the actual farm. The farm shop bounced out of that, he can't of been that stupid to not think that generating a decent income from it wouldn't take nothing more than a simple tweet...

I imagine buying the farm in the first place was a financial decision lended to him let's say, and now he's put it to further use.
 
inbetween said:
It's a great programme but let's face it though Clarkson bought that farm over 15 years ago and previously employed a farmer to run it. Why would he do that if he really just wanted to become a farmer himself?

The whole farmer thing was an opportunity that presented itself because he had a farm and he had a TV company eating out of his hands plus the whole grand tour format was sort of running its course.

I'd love to know how much he earnt from that series because he clearly earnt nothing from running the actual farm.
Click to expand...

None of this is relevant. What's relevant is that he IS a farmer, whether people want to dismiss that or not. People can sit around discussing about why he is this or that and it's a pointless debate because the entire crux is that he's not an illegitimate farmer. He's entitled to his opinion which also seems to be shared by the major bodies in the industry. It was a daft point.
 
Damocles said:
None of this is relevant. What's relevant is that he IS a farmer, whether people want to dismiss that or not. People can sit around discussing about why he is this or that and it's a pointless debate because the entire crux is that he's not an illegitimate farmer. He's entitled to his opinion which also seems to be shared by the major bodies in the industry. It was a daft point.
Click to expand...
Yes he is now but in the context of why he originally bought the farm I really don't believe that it's because he wanted to be a farmer. It'll be because he was advised to do so to tie up his money given agricultural land received IHT relief.

It's simple, buy a farm and employ a farmer to run it, job done. If you die then the IHT levied is probably less than sitting in a property of equivalent value. He was making Top Gear when he first bought it and he didn't run it or even live on it at that time so it was clearly just an asset to him and that's it.

He isn't an illegitimate farmer at all but I seriously doubt that he intended to become one, it's just a television opportunity presented itself and later came the farmshop. I have nothing against him but this is what people do to tie up their money 'safely' and I suppose that makes it a legitimate target for a tax raid. You just have to ask if there was no financial advantage to buying a farm then would he have bought it? Probably not.
 
inbetween said:
Yes he is now but in the context of why he originally bought the farm I really don't believe that it's because he wanted to be a farmer. It'll be because he was advised to do so to tie up his money given agricultural land received IHT relief.

It's simple, buy a farm and employ a farmer to run it, job done. If you die then the IHT levied is probably less than sitting in a property of equivalent value. He was making Top Gear when he first bought it and he didn't run it or even live on it at that time so it was clearly just an asset to him and that's it.

He isn't an illegitimate farmer at all but I seriously doubt that he intended to become one, it's just a television opportunity presented itself and later came the farmshop. I have nothing against him but this is what people do to tie up their money 'safely' and I suppose that makes it a legitimate target for a tax raid. You just have to ask if there was no financial advantage to buying a farm then would he have bought it? Probably not.
Click to expand...
To be fair to him he is trying to run the farm as a legitimate money making business,showing how difficult it is, and he points out several times in the programme first he is learning the industry from others and that he is fortunate to have other incomes so not reliant on the farm, emphasising how hard it is for those that only have farming.
I'd also say his celebrity has held him back from diversifying,with plannig being refused over fear of crowds.
 
Isnt the rise in employers N.I just a stealth tax.
You would have to be naive to think Businesses will absorb the cost ,they will pass these on to the public so we all end up paying more anyway.
 
inbetween said:
It's always seem odd to me that businesses do function like this.

Can't afford to pay the NI increase so we'll make employees pay for it by reducing their pay. However, yes we expect employees to continue to work to ensure our business continues to function and makes profit.

Is the economy really this fragile? It's sad really that most medium to large companies are reduced to nothing more nowdays than an excel spreadsheet.
Click to expand...
Serriously?
Bottom line business costs are mostly employee costs. This budget increases employee costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top