LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

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 censored 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.

I don’t really follow your logic.

I don’t really see why who your parents and what they did before you are should have an impact on you.

You can’t avoid it in large part, if they bring you up better, genes etc, but we can make it more, not less, meritocratic.

There are too many talented people born into poor circumstances whose value to the world is never realised.

And it’s often those who have inherited that are taking their place. If they’re there on merit, go for it. But are they really?

Success should be about what you do, not who you are.

surrey_commuter

First.Aspect said:

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.

in my road there is no difference in sold prices per sq metre between a wreck and a recent refurb

Dorset_Boy

I'm saying, many entreprenneurs or small business owners have only been able to start up because they have inherited something. They would not be able to get the funding from a bank so without the inheritance their ideas are dead in the water.

Without inheritances many business would never have started.
You have suggested that the use of inherited money is inefficient, I dispute that.

Everything you do as a parent impacts your children in one way or another.
You sending Junior Chasey on a school trip is giving her an inheritance whilst you are alive. Extending your logic of not passing on wealth has to ban things such as that, surely?

Should everything a parent does for their child be logged and have interest charged?
Let's say Junior chasey is 22 and wants to start a business, she comes to you for finance. Your logic is that she must take a loan from you on commercial terms, terms which may not actually be available. So she pays 25% pa interest. The business then doesn't work. Is that a good thing?

You say: Success should be about what you do, not who you are.
But to start a business invariably you need finance from somewhere. Where do you get that from?

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

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.

people will feel a lot poorer as they will stop kidding themselves about how much money they have "made" buying and selling property.

kingstongraham

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm saying, many entreprenneurs or small business owners have only been able to start up because they have inherited something. They would not be able to get the funding from a bank so without the inheritance their ideas are dead in the water.

Without inheritances many business would never have started.
You have suggested that the use of inherited money is inefficient, I dispute that.

Everything you do as a parent impacts your children in one way or another.
You sending Junior Chasey on a school trip is giving her an inheritance whilst you are alive. Extending your logic of not passing on wealth has to ban things such as that, surely?

Should everything a parent does for their child be logged and have interest charged?
Let's say Junior chasey is 22 and wants to start a business, she comes to you for finance. Your logic is that she must take a loan from you on commercial terms, terms which may not actually be available. So she pays 25% pa interest. The business then doesn't work. Is that a good thing?

You say: Success should be about what you do, not who you are.
But to start a business invariably you need finance from somewhere. Where do you get that from?

By this definition, it absolutely is inefficient. Understandable, but inefficient. If that funding were more widely available on the same terms, what are the chances that the "best" recipient is your offspring?

Dorset_Boy

kingstongraham said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm saying, many entreprenneurs or small business owners have only been able to start up because they have inherited something. They would not be able to get the funding from a bank so without the inheritance their ideas are dead in the water.

Without inheritances many business would never have started.
You have suggested that the use of inherited money is inefficient, I dispute that.

Everything you do as a parent impacts your children in one way or another.
You sending Junior Chasey on a school trip is giving her an inheritance whilst you are alive. Extending your logic of not passing on wealth has to ban things such as that, surely?

Should everything a parent does for their child be logged and have interest charged?
Let's say Junior chasey is 22 and wants to start a business, she comes to you for finance. Your logic is that she must take a loan from you on commercial terms, terms which may not actually be available. So she pays 25% pa interest. The business then doesn't work. Is that a good thing?

You say: Success should be about what you do, not who you are.
But to start a business invariably you need finance from somewhere. Where do you get that from?

By this definition, it absolutely is inefficient. Understandable, but inefficient. If that funding were more widely available on the same terms, what are the chances that the "best" recipient is your offspring?

The issue is the funding often isn't available because the lenders are too risk averse, or the individual has no credit history for example.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

...
Success should be about what you do, not who you are.

"Should be" but never will be. At least not in your lifetime.
Sorry to break that to you.

kingstongraham

Dorset_Boy said:

kingstongraham said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm saying, many entreprenneurs or small business owners have only been able to start up because they have inherited something. They would not be able to get the funding from a bank so without the inheritance their ideas are dead in the water.

Without inheritances many business would never have started.
You have suggested that the use of inherited money is inefficient, I dispute that.

Everything you do as a parent impacts your children in one way or another.
You sending Junior Chasey on a school trip is giving her an inheritance whilst you are alive. Extending your logic of not passing on wealth has to ban things such as that, surely?

Should everything a parent does for their child be logged and have interest charged?
Let's say Junior chasey is 22 and wants to start a business, she comes to you for finance. Your logic is that she must take a loan from you on commercial terms, terms which may not actually be available. So she pays 25% pa interest. The business then doesn't work. Is that a good thing?

You say: Success should be about what you do, not who you are.
But to start a business invariably you need finance from somewhere. Where do you get that from?

By this definition, it absolutely is inefficient. Understandable, but inefficient. If that funding were more widely available on the same terms, what are the chances that the "best" recipient is your offspring?

The issue is the funding often isn't available because the lenders are too risk averse, or the individual has no credit history for example.

Which is why it is undeniably inefficient for the decision about who this applies to but nevertheless get funding to be decided by whether their parents or grandparents have owned a house.

Its only advantage is that there might be some added incentive to work to make it a success if there's an emotional element attached to failure.

Jezyboy

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
Success should be about what you do, not who you are.

"Should be" but never will be. At least not in your lifetime.
Sorry to break that to you.

This won't be perfect so let's do nothing to improve it?

pblakeney

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
Success should be about what you do, not who you are.

"Should be" but never will be. At least not in your lifetime.
Sorry to break that to you.

This won't be perfect so let's do nothing to improve it?

Affect what you can, accept what you can't.
Not great by any means but simplifies your life making it more enjoyable.

wallace_and_gromit

pblakeney said:

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...

I was thinking of things like a new roof, damp-proofing or modernised pluming / electrics. Why would you spend £x on a house to then need to spend £y to fix the roof if the resulting house is then still worth £x? Logically, one would pay £x-y for the house, spend £y and then have a house worth £x.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

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.

I get why you want to penalise inheritance now. My post surmised that in 20+ years, when it's Chasey Jnr's inheritance that is being taxed away, that Chasey Snr's views may have changed.

Chapeau to you if you are still prepared to happily hand over a large 6 figure sum (today's money) to the government.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Loving the proposed 'genuinely wealthy' tax bracket

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

If that's aimed at me, my preference is to abolish it. I simply put that there as one option which is in operation in the USA for example.

Stevo_666

wallace_and_gromit said:

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.

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.

Why do you think its so popular with some people on here?

Stevo_666

Maybe we should be looking at countries that don't levy IHT to see what we can learn from them. Apart from my Swedish example, these include: Australia, Austria, Canada, China, Estonia, Hungary, India, Israel, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia and Slovenia. Seems like a good idea in practice if a good number of countries don't levy it.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

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.

If you can find somewhere at the right price that's great, but if the plumbing and electrics are in need of work, and the windows need replacing, then would you offer £100k less and would the vendor accept?

pblakeney

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

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...

I was thinking of things like a new roof, damp-proofing or modernised pluming / electrics. Why would you spend £x on a house to then need to spend £y to fix the roof if the resulting house is then still worth £x? Logically, one would pay £x-y for the house, spend £y and then have a house worth £x.

I read you wrong then. Life is not as simple as that.
I was referring to ongoing maintenance. Life would be pretty shitty with a leaking roof.

If you are going to be taxed on profit then all expenses should be offset. My thinking.

rjsterry

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm saying, many entreprenneurs or small business owners have only been able to start up because they have inherited something. They would not be able to get the funding from a bank so without the inheritance their ideas are dead in the water.

Without inheritances many business would never have started.
You have suggested that the use of inherited money is inefficient, I dispute that.

Everything you do as a parent impacts your children in one way or another.
You sending Junior Chasey on a school trip is giving her an inheritance whilst you are alive. Extending your logic of not passing on wealth has to ban things such as that, surely?

Should everything a parent does for their child be logged and have interest charged?
Let's say Junior chasey is 22 and wants to start a business, she comes to you for finance. Your logic is that she must take a loan from you on commercial terms, terms which may not actually be available. So she pays 25% pa interest. The business then doesn't work. Is that a good thing?

You say: Success should be about what you do, not who you are.
But to start a business invariably you need finance from somewhere. Where do you get that from?

I don't see anything objectionable about a parent charging interest on money loaned to a child. Or if a start-up, taking a share in the business.

shirley_basso

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe we should be looking at countries that don't levy IHT to see what we can learn from them. Apart from my Swedish example, these include: Australia, Austria, Canada, China, Estonia, Hungary, India, Israel, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia and Slovenia. Seems like a good idea in practice if a good number of countries don't levy it.

<10% globally. That's a minority, which is not a 'good number' to support your arguement, and some of those chosen are tax havens in themselves (Singapore and Luxembourg I know off hand).

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe we should be looking at countries that don't levy IHT to see what we can learn from them. Apart from my Swedish example, these include: Australia, Austria, Canada, China, Estonia, Hungary, India, Israel, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia and Slovenia. Seems like a good idea in practice if a good number of countries don't levy it.

There's a bit of an overlap with countries that levy a land value tax there.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Loving the proposed 'genuinely wealthy' tax bracket

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

If that's aimed at me, my preference is to abolish it. I simply put that there as one option which is in operation in the USA for example.

😁 🎣.

Everyone thinks they're just about managing - or on a good day they'll stretch to 'doing alright'.

surrey_commuter

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.

The only time they lost their country houses (in any real numbers) was when WW1 messed with their tax planning

Dorset_Boy

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm saying, many entreprenneurs or small business owners have only been able to start up because they have inherited something. They would not be able to get the funding from a bank so without the inheritance their ideas are dead in the water.

Without inheritances many business would never have started.
You have suggested that the use of inherited money is inefficient, I dispute that.

Everything you do as a parent impacts your children in one way or another.
You sending Junior Chasey on a school trip is giving her an inheritance whilst you are alive. Extending your logic of not passing on wealth has to ban things such as that, surely?

Should everything a parent does for their child be logged and have interest charged?
Let's say Junior chasey is 22 and wants to start a business, she comes to you for finance. Your logic is that she must take a loan from you on commercial terms, terms which may not actually be available. So she pays 25% pa interest. The business then doesn't work. Is that a good thing?

You say: Success should be about what you do, not who you are.
But to start a business invariably you need finance from somewhere. Where do you get that from?

I don't see anything objectionable about a parent charging interest on money loaned to a child. Or if a start-up, taking a share in the business.

Who would determine the appropriate rate of interest to be charged if it is compulsory to charge a market rate for the risk being taken?
There is indeed nothing wrong with a parent charging interest, if they want to, but should they be forced to?

And where do you draw the line on lifetime gifts?

super_davo

If you have serious money, you can avoid IHT, same as you can avoid most taxes. For example leaving in trust or multi trusts, which open up as many nil rate bands as you like.

This is the problem with the Tory approach to taxes - freeze bands so more and more people get caught by fiscal drag, whilst leaving massive backdoors open to dodge them if you have the money, contacts, lack of ethics etc.

IMO if the IHT threshold is catching the average family home, the nil rate band is too low. And a quick Google reveals the last time IHT bands were raised was.. 2009.

Another example of why any "taxes will be higher under Labour" stuff is so laughable.

rjsterry

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm saying, many entreprenneurs or small business owners have only been able to start up because they have inherited something. They would not be able to get the funding from a bank so without the inheritance their ideas are dead in the water.

Without inheritances many business would never have started.
You have suggested that the use of inherited money is inefficient, I dispute that.

Everything you do as a parent impacts your children in one way or another.
You sending Junior Chasey on a school trip is giving her an inheritance whilst you are alive. Extending your logic of not passing on wealth has to ban things such as that, surely?

Should everything a parent does for their child be logged and have interest charged?
Let's say Junior chasey is 22 and wants to start a business, she comes to you for finance. Your logic is that she must take a loan from you on commercial terms, terms which may not actually be available. So she pays 25% pa interest. The business then doesn't work. Is that a good thing?

You say: Success should be about what you do, not who you are.
But to start a business invariably you need finance from somewhere. Where do you get that from?

I don't see anything objectionable about a parent charging interest on money loaned to a child. Or if a start-up, taking a share in the business.

Who would determine the appropriate rate of interest to be charged if it is compulsory to charge a market rate for the risk being taken?
There is indeed nothing wrong with a parent charging interest, if they want to, but should they be forced to?

And where do you draw the line on lifetime gifts?

I'm sure someone could work out these details. I think standing on your own two feet is something to encourage. To that end, income is income, from whomever it comes.

kingstongraham

shirley_basso said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe we should be looking at countries that don't levy IHT to see what we can learn from them. Apart from my Swedish example, these include: Australia, Austria, Canada, China, Estonia, Hungary, India, Israel, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia and Slovenia. Seems like a good idea in practice if a good number of countries don't levy it.

<10% globally. That's a minority, which is not a 'good number' to support your arguement, and some of those chosen are tax havens in themselves (Singapore and Luxembourg I know off hand).</p>

From a quick google, Estonia has a flat rate 20% income tax. But a 33% social tax on employers. Capital gains treated as income. And a land value tax. A simple tax system apparently.

Dorset_Boy

super_davo said:

If you have serious money, you can avoid IHT, same as you can avoid most taxes. For example leaving in trust or multi trusts, which open up as many nil rate bands as you like.

This is the problem with the Tory approach to taxes - freeze bands so more and more people get caught by fiscal drag, whilst leaving massive backdoors open to dodge them if you have the money, contacts, lack of ethics etc.

IMO if the IHT threshold is catching the average family home, the nil rate band is too low. And a quick Google reveals the last time IHT bands were raised was.. 2009.

Another example of why any "taxes will be higher under Labour" stuff is so laughable.

The basic nil rate band hasn't changed since 2009, but there was no residence nil rate band then (introduced in April 2017), and the transferable nil rate band was only introduced in 2007.

IHT is a voluntary tax, but you really don't need 'serious money' to avoid it if a little over the thresholds.

Stevo_666

shirley_basso said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe we should be looking at countries that don't levy IHT to see what we can learn from them. Apart from my Swedish example, these include: Australia, Austria, Canada, China, Estonia, Hungary, India, Israel, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia and Slovenia. Seems like a good idea in practice if a good number of countries don't levy it.

<10% globally. That's a minority, which is not a 'good number' to support your arguement, and some of those chosen are tax havens in themselves (Singapore and Luxembourg I know off hand).</p>

That was not an an exhaustive list.

Even so, what percentage of the worlds population does that cover? Let's add to that the US which has a threshold of $12.9m so the very large majority of the US population is exempt. Then lets add those countries charging less than 10%: Iceland, Turkey, Vietnam, Brazil, Poland, Switzerland, Philippines, Croatia, Italy.

We probably have majority of the worlds population and economy covered there, or if not then a significant chunk.

The UK has one of the highest rates in the world.

Stevo_666

super_davo said:

If you have serious money, you can avoid IHT, same as you can avoid most taxes. For example leaving in trust or multi trusts, which open up as many nil rate bands as you like.

This is the problem with the Tory approach to taxes - freeze bands so more and more people get caught by fiscal drag, whilst leaving massive backdoors open to dodge them if you have the money, contacts, lack of ethics etc.

IMO if the IHT threshold is catching the average family home, the nil rate band is too low. And a quick Google reveals the last time IHT bands were raised was.. 2009.

Another example of why any "taxes will be higher under Labour" stuff is so laughable.

Lots of people won't be laughing if they do believe that and Labour do get in.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Loving the proposed 'genuinely wealthy' tax bracket

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

If that's aimed at me, my preference is to abolish it. I simply put that there as one option which is in operation in the USA for example.

😁 🎣.

Everyone thinks they're just about managing - or on a good day they'll stretch to 'doing alright'.

Lots of people make sweeping generalisations as well