LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

First.Aspect

It is basically a dementia tax. People with dementia can lose the ability to plan for things like this well before they are formally lacking in capacity.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

It is basically a dementia tax. People with dementia can lose the ability to plan for things like this well before they are formally lacking in capacity.

A long bout of dementia can obliterate all but the biggest inheritances.

sungod

Stevo_666 said:

Time to ditch IHT for our own good based on the experience of some of our more enlightened European partners:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/

Real life experience beats theoretical leftiebollox.

i'm all for it, but would you accept sweden's income tax rates to go with that? if governments can't get it from iht they'll get it another way

the uk tax system is the result of many decades of governments fiddling, patching and bodging, with the result that a few gain advantages not open to the most

cutting iht won't fix that, though it's another area where the few can readily avoid what the majority can't

the uk's personal tax system needs a massive shake up to simplify it and make it more equitable - reduce avoidance opportunities and get rid of things like the idiocy that a person earning less than another can end up paying a higher overall % of income as tax due to personal allowance tapering, the tories clearly think that's a good thing otherwise they'd have fixed it years ago, that's pure rightiebollox

sungod

glad to see the mail is now against levelling up...

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/4D2E/production/_129985791_mail_sunday-nc.png.webp

Jezyboy

sungod said:

glad to see the mail is now against levelling up...

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/4D2E/production/_129985791_mail_sunday-nc.png.webp

On the one hand I'm glad as I found it an incredibly annoying slogan. Otoh, I think the general idea behind it was sound.

sungod

Jezyboy said:

sungod said:

glad to see the mail is now against levelling up...

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/4D2E/production/_129985791_mail_sunday-nc.png.webp

On the one hand I'm glad as I found it an incredibly annoying slogan. Otoh, I think the general idea behind it was sound.

yes, though the only significant action so far has been levelling down

actual 'levelling up' requires new investment, not taking something from one area and moving it to another

orraloon

Level Up was just another BS sloganeering pitch, entice some mug punters to vote #toryscum. Unfortunately too many mug punters fell for such.

About as real as Spaffer's oven-ready Brexshit deal and building 40 new hospitals by 2030.

First.Aspect

orraloon said:

Level Up was just another BS sloganeering pitch, entice some mug punters to vote #toryscum. Unfortunately too many mug punters fell for such.

About as real as Spaffer's oven-ready Brexshit deal and building 40 new hospitals by 2030.

He never claimed that some of those new hospitals didn't already exist.

pangolin

First.Aspect said:

orraloon said:

Level Up was just another BS sloganeering pitch, entice some mug punters to vote #toryscum. Unfortunately too many mug punters fell for such.

About as real as Spaffer's oven-ready Brexshit deal and building 40 new hospitals by 2030.

He never claimed that some of those new hospitals didn't already exist.

I don't think we can comment on that until after the enquiry.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

orraloon said:

Level Up was just another BS sloganeering pitch, entice some mug punters to vote #toryscum. Unfortunately too many mug punters fell for such.

About as real as Spaffer's oven-ready Brexshit deal and building 40 new hospitals by 2030.

He never claimed that some of those new hospitals didn't already exist.

The use of the word “new” was deliberately misleading, at best.

Stevo_666

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

Time to ditch IHT for our own good based on the experience of some of our more enlightened European partners:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/

Real life experience beats theoretical leftiebollox.

i'm all for it, but would you accept sweden's income tax rates to go with that? if governments can't get it from iht they'll get it another way

the uk tax system is the result of many decades of governments fiddling, patching and bodging, with the result that a few gain advantages not open to the most

cutting iht won't fix that, though it's another area where the few can readily avoid what the majority can't

the uk's personal tax system needs a massive shake up to simplify it and make it more equitable - reduce avoidance opportunities and get rid of things like the idiocy that a person earning less than another can end up paying a higher overall % of income as tax due to personal allowance tapering, the tories clearly think that's a good thing otherwise they'd have fixed it years ago, that's pure rightiebollox

To your first point, Sweden didn't have to raise their income tax rates because as the link says, they were gathering more of other taxes at existing rates from the wealthy/wealth creators who didn't leave to avoid IHT,or returned because they weren't going to get stung.

Agree that the tax system (not just the personal tax system) is massively complex - as are the systems of most developed economies. A lot of the complexity is trying to close loopholes and ironically would not be needed to the same degree if they had more competitive rates. It would as you say also reduce fiddling and also attract more wealth creators.

Allowance tapering is one specific case which needs fixing, agreed. However it does not mean that someone pays more tax than a higher earner in a similar situation - just that the marginal rate on that band of income is higher.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

Time to ditch IHT for our own good based on the experience of some of our more enlightened European partners:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/

Real life experience beats theoretical leftiebollox.

or remove all loopholes and have a low flat rate of 10% on everything as that will lessen the incentive to fiddle.

Maybe make the first £10k tax free

If there is an overall benefit to be had as with the Swedish experience then just chop it altogether and make things simpler at the same time. As some countries have already done.

If we want to return to the original brief of taxing the genuinely rich then set the limits high enough to do that and not punish people for the crime of owning a house South of Watford Gap. For example, the US IHT threshold is in excess of $10m.

If 100% IHT was a good idea then you'd think that several countries would have done it already.

If you accept that the Govt needs money then I would rather have broad based taxes at minimal rates

sungod

Stevo_666 said:

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

Time to ditch IHT for our own good based on the experience of some of our more enlightened European partners:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/

Real life experience beats theoretical leftiebollox.

i'm all for it, but would you accept sweden's income tax rates to go with that? if governments can't get it from iht they'll get it another way

the uk tax system is the result of many decades of governments fiddling, patching and bodging, with the result that a few gain advantages not open to the most

cutting iht won't fix that, though it's another area where the few can readily avoid what the majority can't

the uk's personal tax system needs a massive shake up to simplify it and make it more equitable - reduce avoidance opportunities and get rid of things like the idiocy that a person earning less than another can end up paying a higher overall % of income as tax due to personal allowance tapering, the tories clearly think that's a good thing otherwise they'd have fixed it years ago, that's pure rightiebollox

To your first point, Sweden didn't have to raise their income tax rates because as the link says, they were gathering more of other taxes at existing rates from the wealthy/wealth creators who didn't leave to avoid IHT,or returned because they weren't going to get stung.

Agree that the tax system (not just the personal tax system) is massively complex - as are the systems of most developed economies. A lot of the complexity is trying to close loopholes and ironically would not be needed to the same degree if they had more competitive rates. It would as you say also reduce fiddling and also attract more wealth creators.

Allowance tapering is one specific case which needs fixing, agreed. However it does not mean that someone pays more tax than a higher earner in a similar situation - just that the marginal rate on that band of income is higher.

where did i say sweden raised it's income tax rates?

you're not answering the question: would you accept sweden's income tax rates?

i stated that they may pay a higher % of tax on their total income than a higher earner does, which is correct, why are you making an irrelevant statement about absolute value of tax paid?

Stevo_666

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

Time to ditch IHT for our own good based on the experience of some of our more enlightened European partners:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/

Real life experience beats theoretical leftiebollox.

i'm all for it, but would you accept sweden's income tax rates to go with that? if governments can't get it from iht they'll get it another way

the uk tax system is the result of many decades of governments fiddling, patching and bodging, with the result that a few gain advantages not open to the most

cutting iht won't fix that, though it's another area where the few can readily avoid what the majority can't

the uk's personal tax system needs a massive shake up to simplify it and make it more equitable - reduce avoidance opportunities and get rid of things like the idiocy that a person earning less than another can end up paying a higher overall % of income as tax due to personal allowance tapering, the tories clearly think that's a good thing otherwise they'd have fixed it years ago, that's pure rightiebollox

To your first point, Sweden didn't have to raise their income tax rates because as the link says, they were gathering more of other taxes at existing rates from the wealthy/wealth creators who didn't leave to avoid IHT,or returned because they weren't going to get stung.

Agree that the tax system (not just the personal tax system) is massively complex - as are the systems of most developed economies. A lot of the complexity is trying to close loopholes and ironically would not be needed to the same degree if they had more competitive rates. It would as you say also reduce fiddling and also attract more wealth creators.

Allowance tapering is one specific case which needs fixing, agreed. However it does not mean that someone pays more tax than a higher earner in a similar situation - just that the marginal rate on that band of income is higher.

where did i say sweden raised it's income tax rates?

you're not answering the question: would you accept sweden's income tax rates?

i stated that they may pay a higher % of tax on their total income than a higher earner does, which is correct, why are you making an irrelevant statement about absolute value of tax paid?

1. You implied it by saying that if they didn't get the revenue from IHT they would get it another way. I've already explained how they got more - go read the linked article.

2. No, their income tax rates are too high but as I don't live in Sweden that's irrelevant

3. It's not irrelevant, that's why.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

Time to ditch IHT for our own good based on the experience of some of our more enlightened European partners:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/

Real life experience beats theoretical leftiebollox.

or remove all loopholes and have a low flat rate of 10% on everything as that will lessen the incentive to fiddle.

Maybe make the first £10k tax free

If there is an overall benefit to be had as with the Swedish experience then just chop it altogether and make things simpler at the same time. As some countries have already done.

If we want to return to the original brief of taxing the genuinely rich then set the limits high enough to do that and not punish people for the crime of owning a house South of Watford Gap. For example, the US IHT threshold is in excess of $10m.

If 100% IHT was a good idea then you'd think that several countries would have done it already.

If you accept that the Govt needs money then I would rather have broad based taxes at minimal rates

If you accept the Swedish experience on IHT is right, then it does provide more revenues.

They are not the only ones who either don't impose it or have such a high threshold it only catches the genuinely wealthy. But overall I'm not in favour of wealth taxes, nor taxing death. Maybe the rallying cry to abolish IHT should be 'no taxation without respiration'.

rick_chasey

It really shapes society.

If you want the well off to have earned it as opposed to being lucky, you gotta have high IHT.

I am for encouraging people to become rich, so what better encouragement then “you’re not going to be able to rely on your parents”

IHT already forced all the poshos who lived in big mansions with seas of land to go get earn enough money to keep it and most of them ended up donating it to the national trust. Win win.

Either they’re big earners (always good) or the public get to enjoy it.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

It really shapes society.

If you want the well off to have earned it as opposed to being lucky, you gotta have high IHT.

I am for encouraging people to become rich, so what better encouragement then “you’re not going to be able to rely on your parents”

IHT already forced all the poshos who lived in big mansions with seas of land to go get earn enough money to keep it and most of them ended up donating it to the national trust. Win win.

Either they’re big earners (always good) or the public get to enjoy it.

If this forum is still around in 20 years it will be interesting to revisit this post. Currently you have a house with a very large mortgage. In 20 years you’ll have a much more valuable house with a much smaller mortgage. Will you be so sanguine then about having your wealth appropriated by the state to be “redistributed” as the state sees fit rather than being able to pass it onto the junior Chaseys should that be your preference? (Obviously in the absence of IHT you could gift your wealth to the state rather than your kids should you choose to do so.)

IHT is the supreme example of a tax that is great, so long as it is paid by other people.

wallace_and_gromit

The technical argument against IHT is that the wealth subject to IHT has been generated via income that has already been taxed, sometimes numerous times.

Eg property values are maintained via repairs,, new kitchens etc. that are funded out of post-tax income and that are subject to VAT.

rjsterry

Loving the proposed 'genuinely wealthy' tax bracket

Same old, same old. Always someone else that should pay more.

rjsterry

wallace_and_gromit said:

The technical argument against IHT is that the wealth subject to IHT has been generated via income that has already been taxed, sometimes numerous times.

Eg property values are maintained via repairs,, new kitchens etc. that are funded out of post-tax income and that are subject to VAT.

This is not really true. The difference in value between a mint condition property and a wreck of similar size in the same location is often far less than the cost of the necessary repair and refurbishment work.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

The technical argument against IHT is that the wealth subject to IHT has been generated via income that has already been taxed, sometimes numerous times.

Eg property values are maintained via repairs,, new kitchens etc. that are funded out of post-tax income and that are subject to VAT.

This is not really true. The difference in value between a mint condition property and a wreck of similar size in the same location is often far less than the cost of the necessary repair and refurbishment work.

I'm house hunting at the moment. Trust me, it's true.

Pross

Tax the real-terms profit on properties whenever they get sold then leave it untaxed on death. Might reduce the amount of people using property as an investment, free up housing stock and keep prices down in the process.

rjsterry

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

It really shapes society.

If you want the well off to have earned it as opposed to being lucky, you gotta have high IHT.

I am for encouraging people to become rich, so what better encouragement then “you’re not going to be able to rely on your parents”

IHT already forced all the poshos who lived in big mansions with seas of land to go get earn enough money to keep it and most of them ended up donating it to the national trust. Win win.

Either they’re big earners (always good) or the public get to enjoy it.

If this forum is still around in 20 years it will be interesting to revisit this post. Currently you have a house with a very large mortgage. In 20 years you’ll have a much more valuable house with a much smaller mortgage. Will you be so sanguine then about having your wealth appropriated by the state to be “redistributed” as the state sees fit rather than being able to pass it onto the junior Chaseys should that be your preference? (Obviously in the absence of IHT you could gift your wealth to the state rather than your kids should you choose to do so.)

IHT is the supreme example of a tax that is great, so long as it is paid by other people.

Seems a little odd to get all ideological about state appropriation of wealth on just this one tax. Surely all taxes are state appropriation of wealth to be redistributed as the government sees fit.

wallace_and_gromit

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

The technical argument against IHT is that the wealth subject to IHT has been generated via income that has already been taxed, sometimes numerous times.

Eg property values are maintained via repairs,, new kitchens etc. that are funded out of post-tax income and that are subject to VAT.

This is not really true. The difference in value between a mint condition property and a wreck of similar size in the same location is often far less than the cost of the necessary repair and refurbishment work.

Fair point. Likewise not all expenditure is “value accretive”.

wallace_and_gromit

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

It really shapes society.

If you want the well off to have earned it as opposed to being lucky, you gotta have high IHT.

I am for encouraging people to become rich, so what better encouragement then “you’re not going to be able to rely on your parents”

IHT already forced all the poshos who lived in big mansions with seas of land to go get earn enough money to keep it and most of them ended up donating it to the national trust. Win win.

Either they’re big earners (always good) or the public get to enjoy it.

If this forum is still around in 20 years it will be interesting to revisit this post. Currently you have a house with a very large mortgage. In 20 years you’ll have a much more valuable house with a much smaller mortgage. Will you be so sanguine then about having your wealth appropriated by the state to be “redistributed” as the state sees fit rather than being able to pass it onto the junior Chaseys should that be your preference? (Obviously in the absence of IHT you could gift your wealth to the state rather than your kids should you choose to do so.)

IHT is the supreme example of a tax that is great, so long as it is paid by other people.

Seems a little odd to get all ideological about state appropriation of wealth on just this one tax. Surely all taxes are state appropriation of wealth to be redistributed as the government sees fit.

I was just trying to wind Rick up!

Though to be serious, most folk who are likely to be in scope of IHT pay large amounts of tax via PAYE and NICs, and so have been conditioned from an early age that their contribution to society is taken from the fruits of their labours before they even see it. IHT is different as it’s tied up with the process of a parent dying, so there’s an emotional angle to it too. It also seems more aimed at kicking rich people in the nadgers than generating any serious amounts of revenue, and so in terms of social justice, achieves very little in practical terms.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

The technical argument against IHT is that the wealth subject to IHT has been generated via income that has already been taxed, sometimes numerous times.

Eg property values are maintained via repairs,, new kitchens etc. that are funded out of post-tax income and that are subject to VAT.

This is not really true. The difference in value between a mint condition property and a wreck of similar size in the same location is often far less than the cost of the necessary repair and refurbishment work.

Wasn't that WG's point? People are spending taxed money on maintenance just to keep the status quo and not for financial gain. Maybe not...

shirley_basso

What do you mean by status quo?

If you live in your home, you just want it to be nice, right, and your tastes are allowed to change.

pblakeney

shirley_basso said:

What do you mean by status quo?

If you live in your home, you just want it to be nice, right, and your tastes are allowed to change.

I meant maintenance upkeep. Decoration is (or should be) irrelevant as new occupiers will change it anyway. Extensions etc are another matter.

rick_chasey

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

It really shapes society.

If you want the well off to have earned it as opposed to being lucky, you gotta have high IHT.

I am for encouraging people to become rich, so what better encouragement then “you’re not going to be able to rely on your parents”

IHT already forced all the poshos who lived in big mansions with seas of land to go get earn enough money to keep it and most of them ended up donating it to the national trust. Win win.

Either they’re big earners (always good) or the public get to enjoy it.

If this forum is still around in 20 years it will be interesting to revisit this post. Currently you have a house with a very large mortgage. In 20 years you’ll have a much more valuable house with a much smaller mortgage. Will you be so sanguine then about having your wealth appropriated by the state to be “redistributed” as the state sees fit rather than being able to pass it onto the junior Chaseys should that be your preference? (Obviously in the absence of IHT you could gift your wealth to the state rather than your kids should you choose to do so.)

IHT is the supreme example of a tax that is great, so long as it is paid by other people.

TBH my family has paid plenty, even after losing over half a million on dementia care costs so though it doesn’t affect what I accumulate it has affected what I received. Hadn’t changed my view.

Spending some time with people who only are working to cover the gap till they inheit enough wealth to stop working; that’s enough to make ya socialist. Most overpromoted, lazy, useless sacks of sh!t who think the world owes them something because some distant family member actually made a success of themselves.

YMMV obviously; some are good at using that inherited wealth to work by being entrepreneurs, safe in the knowledge that if it falls over they’ll have no impact on their lifestyle, but again, doesn’t seem an efficient way deploy money.

Dorset_Boy

Is it any less efficient than having to go to a bank for a loan, which is approved or declined by someone who generally knows feck all about the business idea you have?

The fact that there's potentially no interest to pay because you are self funding the idea has to be good?
It also opens opportunities to people to jump out from the employee drudgery to having more control over their future and therefore potential happiness gains, and all the added benefits that brings.