Stealth taxes

Lookyhere

VAT obviously, but i can see a logic in this one but taxes on insurances? holiday travel/med insurance??

but the most bizarre one is Hammonds raid on probate fee's
for those that dont know, it is a flat £215 for diy probate (155 if u use a solicitor) but now will be £300 raising to £20,000 for estates 2m or over, would nt be quite so bad if it kept raising for estates worth 5, 10 100m million but strangely it doesn't!
Many properties of ordinary people esp in the SE will attract the upper end of this scale.

So yet a again the richest will escape, (just like council tax) leaving ordinary folk being hit the hardest at a time when they are most vulnerable.

Hammond ignored pleas to scrape burial fees for children, even though it would cost as little as £10m.

fat daddy

Why does no one on this forum understand the word stealth

Matte black isn't stealth .. it's just black
Vat and visible tax isn't stealth .. it's just tax

Stealth by its name indicates "hidden"

That said I suppose you could hide a matte black bike amounts the other swathes of Matt black bikes

Garry H

It just means "tax that I don't think I should have to pay, it should just be for people that have more money than me"

Ben6899

There are ways around it. There always are...

surrey_commuter

The abolition of tax credits on dividends was a fine stealth tax. The long-term implications were not so good but as a way of raising £10bn pa whilst explaining that you are removing a few anomalies was the work of an evil genius.

briantrumpet

I've got a petrol-head friend who's always complaining about the 'disproportionate' & 'regressive' taxes on motoring, and complains about fixed penalties from automatic NPR systems for things like speeding & mobile phone use. He seems to think that all taxes should be based on simple moral principles, whereas, of course, there are several competing moral principles, plus the need for tax-raising authorities to find ways to, er, raise tax. In the case of motoring, I point out that the taxes are being used in a way that is designed to alter behaviour (make people think twice about whether to use the car, by making it more expensive), and to pay for 'stuff': it's a sign of how addicted to cars people are, that they will voluntarily pay so much, and reflects the free market, where the price of goods reflect what people are prepared to pay, not what the goods actually cost to make. And as far as the fixed penalties are concerned, I merely point out that if people didn't speed or use phones while driving, they would pay zilch.

Unfortunately, one can't avoid death & probate costs, but having some sort of sliding scale (even if the details are currently questionable) doesn't seem entirely unreasonable (though maybe there's a dishonesty given the increase in the Inheritance Tax threshold, and therefore why not just adjust that, given they are both taxes on inheritance).

Pross

I don't see an issue with paying £20k tax on a £2 million asset. It's 1% and it's irrelevant whether this would be a fairly normal detached house in parts of the SE, it's still an asset of £2 million.

The fuss over additional tax on self-employed people is a tricky one. There's such a range of being self-employed that one rule for all is difficult. In some cases people are creating jobs for others or are in industries where it is pretty much the only way to work but then there are thousands of consultants in areas such as IT or my own engineering sector who are doing it for the tax benefits alone and push as close to the boundaries of being an employee as IR35 allows. A friend of mine has worked as a contractor with a local authority for 4 years now, he does 4 days a week with them and then other bits and pieces in the remaining time. They've asked him to go permanent several times but he turns them down and carries on at his £40 per hour rate instead.

arthur_scrimshaw

Pross wrote:

I don't see an issue with paying £20k tax on a £2 million asset. It's 1% and it's irrelevant whether this would be a fairly normal detached house in parts of the SE, it's still an asset of £2 million.

The fuss over additional tax on self-employed people is a tricky one. There's such a range of being self-employed that one rule for all is difficult. In some cases people are creating jobs for others or are in industries where it is pretty much the only way to work but then there are thousands of consultants in areas such as IT or my own engineering sector who are doing it for the tax benefits alone and push as close to the boundaries of being an employee as IR35 allows. A friend of mine has worked as a contractor with a local authority for 4 years now, he does 4 days a week with them and then other bits and pieces in the remaining time. They've asked him to go permanent several times but he turns them down and carries on at his £40 per hour rate instead.

I agree to some point, I agree that the self employed need some incentive to pull away from the security of being employed (if there is any now) however any incentives should be time based, say three years and then revert to a level playing field. As per your example, a proportion of self employed are doing it as a tax avoidance and I don't see why they should enjoy these reduced rates subsidised by those in employment.

briantrumpet

Arthur Scrimshaw wrote:

I agree to some point, I agree that the self employed need some incentive to pull away from the security of being employed (if there is any now) however any incentives should be time based, say three years and then revert to a level playing field. As per your example, a proportion of self employed are doing it as a tax avoidance and I don't see why they should enjoy these reduced rates subsidised by those in employment.

It's also an incentive to unscrupulous employers to move people to 'self-employed' status. HMRC & the government seem to be complicit in creating a loophole that incentivises businesses to shift people onto self-employment 'schemes' that only really have advantages for employers.

Pross

I've actually just accepted a job on a low salary with my current salary being matched via B share dividends if the company hits their targets. Typically a week after accepting the tax free allowance on dividends got lowered by £3k but ultimately it's only about £50 per month lost and I would hope to exceed the base target that's been set. From the company's point of view, they're a new start up and it was the only way they could afford me (I worked with the Directors before and they needed my experience combined with my ability to still get 'on the tools' to develop a new side to their business) so whilst these things do get abused to an extent they really are strong incentives / aids to new start ups when used as intended.

Stevo_666

As mentioned above, the taxes listsd by the OP are not stealth taxes - they are pretty visible. Stealth taxes are things like not increasing tax thresholds in line with wage inflation.

briantrumpet

I don't own any stealths, so I'll be fine.

Lookyhere

I think they are called Stealth taxes in modern parlance, because you are being taxed again on taxed income..... i seem to recall a vigorous defence by some on here when the IHT was increased, no doubt if this probate fee increase was a Labour policy, it would be shot down as a tax on aspiration and a death tax.
thankfully many Tories are up in arms over this particular one, so maybe another u-turn is due?

like IHT, the probate fee increases, are just another reason not to bother "doing the right thing" along with care home fees.

mamba80

When i applied for Probate on my mums estate, it was a valuation and 2 forms, hand the forms into the courts service and once cleared and no caveats, you swear an oath..... i was p1ssed off paying £215 for exactly very little.

Its a service, thats all and should be charged as such, the tories may as will base passport fees on the number and value of holidays you go on or perhaps on your wealth/earnings...... or how about a driving licence fee on the value of your car? sorry, thats coming in the Autumn statement.

TheBigBean

Inheritance tax is a good thing.

I'm ambivalent on the self-employed NI. It made sense to scrap the £2.75/week as that was just unnecessary admin. Although having already included it in the tax return much of the silliness had already gone.

The biggest benefit of being self-employed is not paying employers' NI, so there is still a 13.8% upside.

Also it used to be the case that pensions were worse when self-employed. I haven't heard this mentioned so presume they have changed this.

mamba80

TheBigBean wrote:

Inheritance tax is a good thing.

I'm ambivalent on the self-employed NI. It made sense to scrap the £2.75/week as that was just unnecessary admin. Although having already included it in the tax return much of the silliness had already gone.

The biggest benefit of being self-employed is not paying employers' NI, so there is still a 13.8% upside.

Also it used to be the case that pensions were worse when self-employed. I haven't heard this mentioned so presume they have changed this.

i agree on the NI increases as self employed can get full state pension now. it should nt go much higher though, no sick or hols plus lack of any redundancy.

i dont really see, considering we are expected to fund almost ALL of our nursing and social care, why we should be giving anything to the Gov in the form of probate or IHT, these things should be funded out of general taxation ie income tax, that way we all pay or most of us will do.

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Inheritance tax is a good thing.

I'm ambivalent on the self-employed NI. It made sense to scrap the £2.75/week as that was just unnecessary admin. Although having already included it in the tax return much of the silliness had already gone.

The biggest benefit of being self-employed is not paying employers' NI, so there is still a 13.8% upside.

Also it used to be the case that pensions were worse when self-employed. I haven't heard this mentioned so presume they have changed this.

i agree on the NI increases as self employed can get full state pension now. it should nt go much higher though, no sick or hols plus lack of any redundancy.

i dont really see, considering we are expected to fund almost ALL of our nursing and social care, why we should be giving anything to the Gov in the form of probate or IHT, these things should be funded out of general taxation ie income tax, that way we all pay or most of us will do.

The person who inherits pays the tax on the income that they receive from the deceased. Why should you be exempt from tax on that particular source of income?