LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
I think the key thing about IHT is a simple mindset. If you consider it taxing income to the recipients it seems okay, taxing the dead then not. Same thing in the end.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I would argue that most economics is obvious and simple.Pross said:
Just feels so obvious and simple.surrey_commuter said:
it is a growing amount though.Stevo_666 said:Let's also get the amounts in perspective - it raises sweet FA in the larger scheme of things:
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/where-does-government-get-its-money
Far better to make it 20% on everything, that way everybody is in the same boat. Duke of Westminster dies then if his his estate is worth £10bn he pays £2bn, if granny dies with £10k in her post office acct then her relatives pay £2k.
If every tax had no exemptions and a low rate there would be less incentive and less opportunity to fiddle it so allowing a lower marginal rate.0 -
I'm fairly sure someone with an estate of £100m will indulge in the same level of fiddling with a 20% rate as they would with a 40% rate.surrey_commuter said:
I would argue that most economics is obvious and simple.Pross said:
Just feels so obvious and simple.surrey_commuter said:
it is a growing amount though.Stevo_666 said:Let's also get the amounts in perspective - it raises sweet FA in the larger scheme of things:
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/where-does-government-get-its-money
Far better to make it 20% on everything, that way everybody is in the same boat. Duke of Westminster dies then if his his estate is worth £10bn he pays £2bn, if granny dies with £10k in her post office acct then her relatives pay £2k.
If every tax had no exemptions and a low rate there would be less incentive and less opportunity to fiddle it so allowing a lower marginal rate.
The main exemption is allowing gifts 7 years prior to death. That's the one that needs to change for your plan to work.1 -
Six life peers are unhappy about the way other life peers were made. Their point may be legitimate, but glass houses and all that.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/boris-johnson-criticised-bringing-honours-system-into-question-lords
If I ruled the country, there would be no political members of the Lords. All members would serve fixed terms and be appointed on the basis of their skills in order to provide the expertise necessary to scrutinise legislation.
0 -
But goes against the intention of IHT that it is meant to be a tax on the wealthy.Pross said:
Just feels so obvious and simple.surrey_commuter said:
it is a growing amount though.Stevo_666 said:Let's also get the amounts in perspective - it raises sweet FA in the larger scheme of things:
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/where-does-government-get-its-money
Far better to make it 20% on everything, that way everybody is in the same boat. Duke of Westminster dies then if his his estate is worth £10bn he pays £2bn, if granny dies with £10k in her post office acct then her relatives pay £2k."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
No appointment is ever not political.TheBigBean said:Six life peers are unhappy about the way other life peers were made. Their point may be legitimate, but glass houses and all that.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/boris-johnson-criticised-bringing-honours-system-into-question-lords
If I ruled the country, there would be no political members of the Lords. All members would serve fixed terms and be appointed on the basis of their skills in order to provide the expertise necessary to scrutinise legislation.0 -
I don't agree with that. If I need a plumber, I don't check out their voting record. Or are you arguing that my requirement for a plumber is political, because I could go for a pipe engineer instead?rick_chasey said:
No appointment is ever not political.TheBigBean said:Six life peers are unhappy about the way other life peers were made. Their point may be legitimate, but glass houses and all that.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/boris-johnson-criticised-bringing-honours-system-into-question-lords
If I ruled the country, there would be no political members of the Lords. All members would serve fixed terms and be appointed on the basis of their skills in order to provide the expertise necessary to scrutinise legislation.0 -
err, it isn't a tax break for married couples with over £1M. Estates with up to £1m possibly won't have any IHT levied too. It is of no benefit to the people you suggest as they will have died.rick_chasey said:
Let’s tax the f@ck out of working people but let’s give married couples with over 1mill a big tax break. Well done all round.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, it's a good ideabriantrumpet said:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/
And probably a vote winner. As SB says, doesn't raise a huge amount in the scheme of things anyway.
It's a tax break for their beneficiaries, people such as you.
0 -
It's often a tax break for the newly retired or about to be retired, if we look at average ages of becoming a parent and dying etc.Dorset_Boy said:
err, it isn't a tax break for married couples with over £1M. Estates with up to £1m possibly won't have any IHT levied too. It is of no benefit to the people you suggest as they will have died.rick_chasey said:
Let’s tax the f@ck out of working people but let’s give married couples with over 1mill a big tax break. Well done all round.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, it's a good ideabriantrumpet said:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/
And probably a vote winner. As SB says, doesn't raise a huge amount in the scheme of things anyway.
It's a tax break for their beneficiaries, people such as you.0 -
It's a tax break for anyone of any age who inherits.rick_chasey said:
It's often a tax break for the newly retired or about to be retired, if we look at average ages of becoming a parent and dying etc.Dorset_Boy said:
err, it isn't a tax break for married couples with over £1M. Estates with up to £1m possibly won't have any IHT levied too. It is of no benefit to the people you suggest as they will have died.rick_chasey said:
Let’s tax the f@ck out of working people but let’s give married couples with over 1mill a big tax break. Well done all round.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, it's a good ideabriantrumpet said:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/
And probably a vote winner. As SB says, doesn't raise a huge amount in the scheme of things anyway.
It's a tax break for their beneficiaries, people such as you.
Loads of grandparents leave a legacy, not just their children.0 -
Honestly we will never agree on this. It's just a horrendously inefficient way to deal with wealth in the event of a death.Dorset_Boy said:
It's a tax break for anyone of any age who inherits.rick_chasey said:
It's often a tax break for the newly retired or about to be retired, if we look at average ages of becoming a parent and dying etc.Dorset_Boy said:
err, it isn't a tax break for married couples with over £1M. Estates with up to £1m possibly won't have any IHT levied too. It is of no benefit to the people you suggest as they will have died.rick_chasey said:
Let’s tax the f@ck out of working people but let’s give married couples with over 1mill a big tax break. Well done all round.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, it's a good ideabriantrumpet said:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/
And probably a vote winner. As SB says, doesn't raise a huge amount in the scheme of things anyway.
It's a tax break for their beneficiaries, people such as you.
Loads of grandparents leave a legacy, not just their children.
Terrible. Absolute lottery.0 -
rick_chasey said:
Honestly we will never agree on this. It's just a horrendously inefficient way to deal with wealth in the event of a death.Dorset_Boy said:
It's a tax break for anyone of any age who inherits.rick_chasey said:
It's often a tax break for the newly retired or about to be retired, if we look at average ages of becoming a parent and dying etc.Dorset_Boy said:
err, it isn't a tax break for married couples with over £1M. Estates with up to £1m possibly won't have any IHT levied too. It is of no benefit to the people you suggest as they will have died.rick_chasey said:
Let’s tax the f@ck out of working people but let’s give married couples with over 1mill a big tax break. Well done all round.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, it's a good ideabriantrumpet said:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/
And probably a vote winner. As SB says, doesn't raise a huge amount in the scheme of things anyway.
It's a tax break for their beneficiaries, people such as you.
Loads of grandparents leave a legacy, not just their children.
Terrible. Absolute lottery.
Why is the present system inefficient?
Even if you think wealth on death should be distributed back to society, the current system cannot be described as inefficient, only the wrong way to go about things in your eyes.
It may not be equitable but as with everything in life, it is indeed a lottery, just as it is a lottery who your parents are, what their interest in you and your education is, how well or badly run your school is, where your parents happen to live etc. along with the doors that open for you through a chance meeting and so on.
Personally, I think the RNRB is wrong so would be in favour of some sort of reform of IHT. And having a debate about the redistribution of wealth is not unreasonable given how the wealthiest have become wealthier in relation to everyone else over the last 25 years.
0 -
I mean, it's 2 things right.
1) it's how to engineer a society that is based on merit, not who your parents are
2) it's about how to allocate capital to the most productive things as possible.
Inheritance works against both.0 -
1.) The only way to engineer a society purely based on merit is to remove children from their parents shortly after birth.rick_chasey said:I mean, it's 2 things right.
1) it's how to engineer a society that is based on merit, not who your parents are
2) it's about how to allocate capital to the most productive things as possible.
Inheritance works against both.
2.) Who determines this?
0 -
and why would people go through the aggravation of childbirth?Dorset_Boy said:
1.) The only way to engineer a society purely based on merit is to remove children from their parents shortly after birth.rick_chasey said:I mean, it's 2 things right.
1) it's how to engineer a society that is based on merit, not who your parents are
2) it's about how to allocate capital to the most productive things as possible.
Inheritance works against both.
2.) Who determines this?0 -
Just a teensy bit authoritarian there.rick_chasey said:I mean, it's 2 things right.
1) it's how to engineer a society that is based on merit, not who your parents are
2) it's about how to allocate capital to the most productive things as possible.
Inheritance works against both.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
1 -
In RC world if you are not productive then you are dead wood.rjsterry said:
Just a teensy bit authoritarian there.rick_chasey said:I mean, it's 2 things right.
1) it's how to engineer a society that is based on merit, not who your parents are
2) it's about how to allocate capital to the most productive things as possible.
Inheritance works against both.
I've been called worse. 😉The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
pblakeney said:
In RC world if you are not productive then you are dead wood.rjsterry said:
Just a teensy bit authoritarian there.rick_chasey said:I mean, it's 2 things right.
1) it's how to engineer a society that is based on merit, not who your parents are
2) it's about how to allocate capital to the most productive things as possible.
Inheritance works against both.
I've been called worse. 😉
Don't forget you also need to be ambitious.0 -
1) just because you can't arrive at a perfect solution doesn't mean you needn't bother improving that.
2) money for people doing things, not for existing.0 -
My ambition was to retire while young enough to enjoy it. Job done!First.Aspect said:pblakeney said:
In RC world if you are not productive then you are dead wood.rjsterry said:
Just a teensy bit authoritarian there.rick_chasey said:I mean, it's 2 things right.
1) it's how to engineer a society that is based on merit, not who your parents are
2) it's about how to allocate capital to the most productive things as possible.
Inheritance works against both.
I've been called worse. 😉
Don't forget you also need to be ambitious.
Although that means I am no longer ambitious, or productive. Oh dear.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
The wealth of a legacy was accumulated for doing things. I'm not sure not having spent every last penny on cruises or care homes makes you unproductive. Unspent assets are going to Battersea Dogs Home or the National Trust if they're not going to family. I think there's a strong probability of them having as much useful impact there as at the Treasury.rick_chasey said:1) just because you can't arrive at a perfect solution doesn't mean you needn't bother improving that.
2) money for people doing things, not for existing.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Life's a lottery. Saying this having heard just this morning that our group financial controller has been diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease.rick_chasey said:
Honestly we will never agree on this. It's just a horrendously inefficient way to deal with wealth in the event of a death.Dorset_Boy said:
It's a tax break for anyone of any age who inherits.rick_chasey said:
It's often a tax break for the newly retired or about to be retired, if we look at average ages of becoming a parent and dying etc.Dorset_Boy said:
err, it isn't a tax break for married couples with over £1M. Estates with up to £1m possibly won't have any IHT levied too. It is of no benefit to the people you suggest as they will have died.rick_chasey said:
Let’s tax the f@ck out of working people but let’s give married couples with over 1mill a big tax break. Well done all round.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, it's a good ideabriantrumpet said:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/
And probably a vote winner. As SB says, doesn't raise a huge amount in the scheme of things anyway.
It's a tax break for their beneficiaries, people such as you.
Loads of grandparents leave a legacy, not just their children.
Terrible. Absolute lottery."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I wonder why the right-wing media isn't all over this story like they were with Huw Edwards? I thought they would be outraged by a (GB News) journalist (ex News of the World, Sun, MailOnline) doing this kind of stuff.
0 -
Because most of us only heard of him for this storybriantrumpet said:I wonder why the right-wing media isn't all over this story like they were with Huw Edwards? I thought they would be outraged by a (GB News) journalist (ex News of the World, Sun, MailOnline) doing this kind of stuff.
0 -
Loving the oxymoron of a GB News “star”!1
-
It’s sheer hypocrisy. Huw Edwards was collateral for their attack on the BBC. The fact he didn’t want to be ‘outed’ and had mental health issues was irrelevant.
The Mail and the Sun are utter shitebags.
Similarly to Huw Edwards, I have no interest in Dan Wootons sexual preferences.0 -
GB News host talking about a ‘race to the bottom’ in news is pretty funny though.0
-
Well now you mention it, this is on the front page of the Telegraph website this morning:briantrumpet said:I wonder why the right-wing media isn't all over this story like they were with Huw Edwards? I thought they would be outraged by a (GB News) journalist (ex News of the World, Sun, MailOnline) doing this kind of stuff.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/19/dan-wootton-gb-news-accusations-admits-errors-judgment/"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Great stuff.I’ve always promised you that this show has no spin and no bias and no censorship so I owe it to you to address this...
... on the advice of my lawyers I cannot comment further.0
