The Labour Government

[metalblue]

that's a weird one, it's desperately needed but I've no idea why it costs £10billion in the first place that's a mental price

It’s the UK mate. Pick a number and multiply it by 100.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Freelance repossessions.

I live in sherwood forest with my merry men.

Repossessions? Not sure I could do that, must be quite hard at times?

 

[TinFoilHat]

Burnham's bus franchises may be dearer than he thought.

Robot wont be happy if it is.

 

[meltonblue]

Well for a start, I want the ones with huge chips on their shoulders, to stop acting like society owes them something, to stop trying to justify taking other people's money off them. To take some personal responsibility and stop whinging on about how much better off they'd be if they could only shaft someone else.

Most of society deserves to have a chip on their shoulder given the increasing disparity and concentration of wealth to be fair. The social contract is being stretched to its limits.

 

[mexico1970]

Most of society deserves to have a chip on their shoulder given the increasing disparity and concentration of wealth to be fair. The social contract is being stretched to its limits.

I for one can barely afford to feed my pit Pony.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Repossessions? Not sure I could do that, must be quite hard at times?

He has a distinctive green uniform that sends all his clients aquiver.

Think his work partner is a small bloke called John.

 

[meltonblue]

I for one can barely afford to feed my pit Pony.

Pit pony vs an xl bully would be an interesting match up ;)

 

[Chippy_boy]

I know from working for a charity in a rich area of the country, that there are plenty of people who are asset rich/cash poor.

However, for IHT purposes, these people will be dead. Whoever inherits, has just got an asset worth £500k+. Unless the person inheriting is also living in the same house (and the average age of inheritance these days suggests that's going to a very small figure), you're not talking about a poor person paying. You're talking about someone who is £500k+ richer than they were the day before.

Even then, they're only paying the tax on anything ABOVE the £500k.

Yeah of course, get all that. I mentioned Mansion Tax is the same post, which was perhaps confusing.

But back to IHT, for me it's a matter of principle. You either think it is morally right for the state to take money off people when they die, depriving their airs of money that their parents presumably wanted them to have, or you don't. I am in the latter camp. You live your life and pay your taxes, and that should be the end of it IMO. I don't think it's right that when you die the state should say great we can now have even more of that money you've accumulated. Even worse, to change the rules on people AFTER they have made all of their life choices. The holidays they didn't take, the car they didn't buy, the house move they didn't do, so they can give money to their kids and give them a leg up in life. Only to find that Rachel Thieves says thanks very much, glad you've accumulated that cash, we'll have some more of that (laughing as she does it).

So I am not in favour of their being any IHT at all, let alone a reduction in the tax exempt limits.

 

[i kne albert davy]

Did Starmer make any reference to the Brexit fiasco and its part in our economic situation today, or did he swerve it ?

What the fastest growth rate in the G7 not sure if he mentioned it to be fair.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I wasn't saying that IHT only applies to 25-bedroom houses.

I was saying that for most of us, the tax is about as relevant as one on 25-bedroom houses. Because it is a fact that the percentage of estates that pay it is in single figures. That is, the vast majority will not pay it.

Do you prefer higher income tax instead? Or are you are believer in the naive nonsense that everything can be paid for by 'cutting waste'?

Nope neither, I would start off by taxing big business at a % level above what SMEs are paying. The very biggest businesses don't pay tax at all in this country and can certainly afford it. Then I would look at non doms. Starmer and Reeves have a delicate balancing act to achieve tax wise next month. They need to encourage growth first and foremost otherwise the overall tax revenue won't grow, so taxing SMEs isn't the best choice. None of this is helped by the cost of borrowing being the highest its been for well over a decade, and sectors of the economy still in recession. From what little I've seen I like Reeves, she is clearly a clever cookie and Labour certainly deserve their chance, so we shall have to see.

I do think we could probably spend the country's revenue better, after all we are paying more tax per person than at any point in the last 60years. So it does seem odd that people now need to pay even more, when services are so poor and run down? I mentioned capital infrastructure projects earlier in the thread, it's simply criminal how these are so poorly managed, this is an area where we could certainly save money if the right people reveiwed what was happening.