The Labour Government

[Brooklands Blue]

You are able to mitigate IHT liability via a FAPT which I imagine the majority of polictians have set up regardless of the colour of their rosette. Starmer and Sunak for sure will have such an arrangement given their own personal wealth.

 

[hilts]

This is so naive. The public servants are workers, the same as you and me. The union are workers, the same as you and me. Not all unions are affiliated to Labour.

So let's assume the amount of funding to local councils is frozen. Which public services are you willing to lose? Libraries, street cleaning, refuse collections? Not all are complsory but they all have to be paid for somehow. The key is how much we as a society are prepared to pay and for what.

Define society because plenty don't pay their share. This idea we have a society that comes together for the benefit of all is unfortunately a crock of shit. Always has been. Divisions everywhere .

 

[Blue Maverick]

Inheritance tax is a funny one. Why do people get so worked up about it? You’ll be dead, you won’t know, that’s literally how it works.

Maybe because it’s to give your children a hand, god knows these days they’ll need it, why should the tax man tax something that’s already been taxed several times already, it should be called a death tax anyway.

 

[Jimmieblue]

I'm trying to work out if this is satire?

It’s not no, he’s just annoying me.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I am afraid I am always puzzled when people go on about double taxation.

Every time I buy something that incurs VAT (or fuel duty or alcohol duty) I am double taxed as I have already paid tax on the money I am spending.

IHT is not double tax. For a start, most of my estate, when I die, will be my house, which has inflated hugely in price from about 64k to over 300k.I have not paid a penny in tax on that unearned increase in my nominal wealth. Not one penny.

Moreover, for anything I leave behind, I shall not be paying IHT. That will be my heirs and assigns, and they have never paid a single penny of tax on my property. So how, pray, is it 'double tax'? More like single tax with a very generous tax-free allowance.

You must be indeed be puzzled then as IHT is often referred to as the least favoured tax by the UK taxpayers in polls carried out. That said clearly all taxes that affect hard working people are unpopular.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

You sound like a communist, how do you fancy a holiday in Moscow. Most people want to give their children a leg up, it’s human nature.

You sound like someone whose parents only allowed them to read cuttings of Guido Fawkes and the Spectator.

Did the state repossess the question marks on your keyboard?

 

[mexico1970]

Maybe because it’s to give your children a hand, god knows these days they’ll need it, why should the tax man tax something that’s already been taxed several times already, it should be called a death tax anyway.

I suspect there are a lot of childless people who couldn't give a toss, the threshold is quite high but what happens if you have say 4 children and they are just divvying up a house ? They'd have to sell it and split the difference between 4.

Many people wont even have an asset after they've sold it to pay for care in a care home, if you've got property or money get it spent now while you still can.

 

[Blue Maverick]

I am afraid I am always puzzled when people go on about double taxation.

Every time I buy something that incurs VAT (or fuel duty or alcohol duty) I am double taxed as I have already paid tax on the money I am spending.

IHT is not double tax. For a start, most of my estate, when I die, will be my house, which has inflated hugely in price from about 64k to over 300k.I have not paid a penny in tax on that unearned increase in my nominal wealth. Not one penny.

Moreover, for anything I leave behind, I shall not be paying IHT. That will be my heirs and assigns, and they have never paid a single penny of tax on my property. So how, pray, is it 'double tax'? More like single tax with a very generous tax-free allowance.

How many times have you paid stamp duty? Is that not a tax? You’ll have paid tax on everything you bought to make that house value rise as well, change the name to Death Tax and call it what it is.

 

[hilts]

Actually more than 12% of the population have an income of £80k+ And that was 2021, so presumably it's more like 13% or 14% now.

And the average UK house price is around £300k and most people when the die of old age, own their homes. The average price of a detached house is £450k, and of course being an average MANY are much higher than that.

The idea that anyone who earns £80k and has a £500k house is some kind of outlier edge case, is nonsense. There's probably 5m or 10m people who fit into that category.

10m? I'm guessing you're not a mathematician. 14% of the working population is 10m really?

 

[Blue Maverick]

I suspect there are a lot of childless people who couldn't give a toss, the threshold is quite high but what happens if you have say 4 children and they are just divvying up a house ? They'd have to sell it and split the difference between 4.

Many people wont even have an asset after they've sold it to pay for care in a care home, if you've got property or money get it spent now while you still can.

Well that’s what wills and trusts are for to avoid losing lots of that money, especially for care homes. I agree if I had no kids I’d get to about state retirement and sell the lot, £300k rent somewhere and blow the the lot in the next 10 years once I hit near 80 I’d be happy just to sit home drool and watch City

 

[Jimmieblue]

You sound like someone whose parents only allowed them to read cuttings of Guido Fawkes and the Spectator.

Did the state repossess the question marks on your keyboard?

I might do to you, but neither Guido Fawkes nor the Spectator were circulating when they were alive. My father, as an engineer not a toolmaker, toured the world installing gas and oil engines. He used to come back and say this was the best country in the world. I want it to remain so for my children and grandchildren.

 

[bert38]

Maybe because it’s to give your children a hand, god knows these days they’ll need it, why should the tax man tax something that’s already been taxed several times already, it should be called a death tax anyway.

But in the majority of cases they’d benefit more from a more equal society where taxation wasn’t skewed to benefit the already wealthy

 

[mexico1970]

Well that’s what wills and trusts are for to avoid losing lots of that money, especially for care homes. I agree if I had no kids I’d get to about state retirement and sell the lot, £300k rent somewhere and blow the the lot in the next 10 years once I hit near 80 I’d be happy just to sit home drool and watch City

You worked for it you should just smash it instead of meekly handing it over, if you've got an inkling to do this could you please drop me a line I would love to help you spend it mate :)

 

[bluenova]

Maybe because it’s to give your children a hand, god knows these days they’ll need it, why should the tax man tax something that’s already been taxed several times already, it should be called a death tax anyway.

I think most people would agree that they want to help their own children. But that applies to any taxation. If I didn't pay any income tax, I'd have more money to spend helping my children. In fact, it would be even more useful, as I'd be able to help them out while I was still young, and when they were setting out on their own lives.

However, I also realise that my taxes pay for the NHS, for schools, for pensions, and all the other things that a good society needs. And I recognise that that's better for my own kids, but also that they're already relatively lucky, and that if more of my taxes goes to people who are in a worse situation, then I'm happy with that.

Most people are able to make that connection with taxation on their own income, even when they might not be able to afford everything they want.

Making the connection when we're talking about a windfall of over half a million, especially when the first £500k is tax free, and where the beneficiaries of £500k+ estates will be much more likely to be reasonable well off anyway, shouldn't be beyond the scope of anyone.

 

[hampshireblue]

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.

Too much to reply to, but going down the "it's all the foreigner's fault" rabbit hole is so naive. Just for accuracy, the Reading Heathrow Rail link was postponed indefinitely in 2020, so nothing to do with Starmer. But hey, why let facts get in the way? Oh, by the way, Leonardo are owned by Johnny Foreigner!

 

[Millwallawayveteran1988]

How do you tell the difference?

You can’t really.

I think paying tax on something that you have already paid tax on is just life really.

VAT/Insurance Tax/Council Tax/Road tax for example.

The problem is that where someone deems the tax rate too high, they can live without the extra income and it’s not compulsory like the above four, then many people will do what they can to reduce the tax burden.

If for example an earner with salary of £60k sacrifices £10k of that into their work pension, then the tax saving to the individual is £4200. The goverment make nothing on it at that point. It also costs them 13.8% in lost employer national insurance so a further £1380 in lost revenue.

Eventually that individual might take some money out when they retire and either pay 15% on it or nothing if they have their personal allowance to use up. Let’s say they pay the 15%. The tax revenue is £1500 instead of £5580. If someone does it for 10 years then it’s lost revenue of over £40,000.

Maybe this is one thing they need to look at. How can they incentivise people to take the tax hit now and not pay it into pensions. How they do this I don’t know and that’s the challenge.

Extra money in the consumer pocket though doesn’t always boost the UK economy. The economies of Spain, Greece, The Caribbean and the like do just as well of that!

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

You can’t really.

I think paying tax on something that you have already paid tax on is just life really.

VAT/Insurance Tax/Council Tax/Road tax for example.

The problem is that where someone deems the tax rate too high, they can live without the extra income and it’s not compulsory like the above four, then many people will do what they can to reduce the tax burden.

If for example an earner with salary of £60k sacrifices £10k of that into their work pension, then the tax saving to the individual is £4200. The goverment make nothing on it at that point. It also costs them 13.8% in lost employer national insurance so a further £1380 in lost revenue.

Eventually that individual might take some money out when they retire and either pay 15% on it or nothing if they have their personal allowance to use up. Let’s say they pay the 15%. The tax revenue is £1500 instead of £5580. If someone does it for 10 years then it’s lost revenue of over £40,000.

Maybe this is one thing they need to look at. How can they incentivise people to take the tax hit now and not pay it into pensions. How they do this I don’t know and that’s the challenge.

Extra money in the consumer pocket though doesn’t always boost the UK economy. The economies of Spain, Greece, The Caribbean and the like do just as well of that!

But you don't pay tax on something you've already paid tax on ... you pay tax on its increase in value

 

[Blue Maverick]

You worked for it you should just smash it instead of meekly handing it over, if you've got an inkling to do this could you please drop me a line I would love to help you spend it mate :)

I’ll buy you a beer

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

But you don't pay tax on something you've already paid tax on ... you pay tax on its increase in value

No you don't, it's a tax on its value above the threshold not on its increase.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I think most people would agree that they want to help their own children. But that applies to any taxation. If I didn't pay any income tax, I'd have more money to spend helping my children. In fact, it would be even more useful, as I'd be able to help them out while I was still young, and when they were setting out on their own lives.

However, I also realise that my taxes pay for the NHS, for schools, for pensions, and all the other things that a good society needs. And I recognise that that's better for my own kids, but also that they're already relatively lucky, and that if more of my taxes goes to people who are in a worse situation, then I'm happy with that.

Most people are able to make that connection with taxation on their own income, even when they might not be able to afford everything they want.

Making the connection when we're talking about a windfall of over half a million, especially when the first £500k is tax free, and where the beneficiaries of £500k+ estates will be much more likely to be reasonable well off anyway, shouldn't be beyond the scope of anyone.

It's why they have to call it a death tax and cause people to react emotionally.

"IHT reform" (i.e. abolishment) basically an activist movement for the very rich, and the middle classes waving their fists about it don't even realise they are being played for useful idiots.