Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
And most of those estates will not be subject to IHT.
Did you not read the link?
Up to £1 million pound not subject to inheritance tax. Far too generous.
The state pays for the services which you need to exist.
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
Did you not read the link?
Up to £1 million pound not subject to inheritance tax. Far too generous.
The state pays for the services which you need to exist.
That doesn't stop it being a tax that is aimed at those who have the most ability to pay.
And what difference does it make that you bought the house with money you possibly paid tax on? There's no guarantee of that, and much of the wealth in the house is likely to be unearned growth.
Are you also arguing that VAT, Council Tax, CGT on all assets we have bought, should also go?
johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
Trust me friend, the big unions still control the Labour Party. They saw off Blair and we'll be back to a Winter of Discontent before too long - ushering the Tories back in. What drives these long planned tax increases isn't a desire for public service improvement but the need to raise funds for the elimination of evil capitalists through a wholesale nationalisation programme. The same old story.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 14,262
I know the threshold. I stand by the point I made.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 14,262
I see your point, but there is no graduation on inheritance tax and it sweeps up all assets regardless if how they were acquired. I strongly feel that there are other tax avenues that the governemnt should tackle before this one. And I know full well they will chicken out and avoid dealing with them just like all the previous governments.
As always it will be the hard working middle income earners that pick up the extra tax burden.
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
It's definitely tricky since clearly there are many public services that are not where we would want them to be. HOWEVER, you cannot have better public services than the country can afford, so the question is how do we grow the economy so that in time we can afford better?
And you do not grow the economy by taking more and more money off people so they have less to spend, by driving wealth-creators out of the country in their thousands and loading businesses with higher taxes which must get passed on to consumers and depressing sales. This is demonstrated world over time and time again: Low taxes yield higher growth, higher taxes reduce growth.
For a start, I would save £11bn in foreign aid by not giving it to other countries, some of which are better off than we are. Did you know we are paying for a new cycle path in Mexico? And we are giving money to China to fund Chinese Opera. Seriously! We are giving IIRC £2bn to FOREIGN climate change iniatives, abour the same amount as the WFA. So the "we have no choice" bollocks from Starmer is exactly that, bollocks. It is a choice. He could have chosen to stop giving money to foreigners if we are so broke, could he not?
Robin Hood in Reverse: Foreign aid spending in regions that are richer than parts of the UK
Contents Summary UK Official Development Assistance (ODA) spending has gone to regions of upper-middle-income countries with GDP per capita figures … Continue reading "Robin Hood in Reverse: Foreign aid spending in regions that are richer than parts of the UK"
iea.org.uk
And I wouid not have handed out 14% pay increases with no strings attached to train drivers already earning £50k+ per year for a 4-day working week!
But beyond the £11bn, I would also prioritise infrasture building via borrowing, not via tax raising. All parties are aligned on the sense of borrowing to invest rather than borrowing to pay current account bills. So why has Starmer already blocked the Reading to Heathrow rail link which would have been a boon for anyone living in the Southwest or Wales who need periodically to travel to Heathrow. Or how about the stone hedge tunnel also scrapped. The cancellation the Leonardo helicopter order is hardly "encouraging growth" either.
No, I am afraid the man is a cretin. He has shown his true colours in the wake of this riots. A jumped up public prosecutor who is very much at home acting as a policeman but who ultimately has not got a fucking clue.
Last edited:
DenisLawBackHeel74
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 11,302
Agree with much of the sentiment here but (maybe naively) willing to give this arse cheek the benefit of the doubt until I know what the plan is……
It's not the middle earners though. It's the top few %.
I've got no idea of your situation, but if you are worried that you can ONLY pass on £500k tax free to family, then that puts you in an incredibly fortunate situation.
I don't put you in the same category as this man, but it's worth watching to see just how committed he is to thinking his £80k earnings was nowhere near the top 50%, never mind top 5%.
Man thinks his £80k salary is average in bizarre Question Time rant
The man claimed he was nowhere near the top 50% of earners in the country - despite his very healthy annual income. A clip of his rant on the BBC show quickly went viral last night.
www.mirror.co.uk
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 14,262
Is he a train driver?It's not the middle earners though. It's the top few %.
I've got no idea of your situation, but if you are worried that you can ONLY pass on £500k tax free to family, then that puts you in an incredibly fortunate situation.
I don't put you in the same category as this man, but it's worth watching to see just how committed he is to thinking his £80k earnings was nowhere near the top 50%, never mind top 5%.
Man thinks his £80k salary is average in bizarre Question Time rant
The man claimed he was nowhere near the top 50% of earners in the country - despite his very healthy annual income. A clip of his rant on the BBC show quickly went viral last night.