Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo 666 wrote:

So why have any allowance?

These nasty bourgeois types giving their kids money, how dare they...

I think the theory goes, so that they can go out and earn it themselves.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

So why have any allowance?

These nasty bourgeois types giving their kids money, how dare they...

I think the theory goes, so that they can go out and earn it themselves.

So you're not up for giving your kid the best start in life that you can?

I'm sharing the theory, not my own views.

I can see the argument on a micro family level, but I can also see the macro argument.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

So why have any allowance?

These nasty bourgeois types giving their kids money, how dare they...

I think the theory goes, so that they can go out and earn it themselves.

So you're not up for giving your kid the best start in life that you can?

I'd like to give my kid the best start in life, so I propose not paying income tax. VAT too as that is a bit of a drag.

Ultimately, tax is raised and spent, and it is for the electorate to decide how. I would vote for more inheritance tax.

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

McDonnell looking in detail at taxing anyone whom want to give their kids some financial support as well as bringing the large majority of family homes [in London] into IHT.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/john-mcdonnell-accused-of-tax-raid-on-londoners-amid-claims-80-of-homes-would-be-hit-by-planned-a4179371.html

£250K will get you a 3-bed house in quite a lot of the UK and then there's all those who don't even own property.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/family ... nder-250k/

£250k will bring you into scope of this as Labour's proposed limit is £125k.

And that's not just about property or just on death - it's all gifts made over your lifetime. So looks like things like paying your kids uni fees or giving the something towards their wedding or deposit on a flat would count. Appealing?

I mentioned £250K as that was the figure the ES was hyperventilating about. £125K still gives plenty of scope for some help with uni costs, a wedding present and a deposit on a first home, and it's not as if you can't give more than that. It's a bit crude and I suspect designed as much for the headlines as for the actual economics of it, but I'm not fundamentally opposed to it.

Do you have kids? One issue here is that if this limit applies to the donor - and let's say they have 3 or 4 kids - they will be stuffed. Milking the rich for tax is one thing but this will impact a very large number of ordinary people (ordinary in the financial sense).

Also once this become clearer, people will either find a way round it, or go p1ss their money up the proverbial wall instead of giving their kids a helping hand in life. I.e. it will simply create avoidance as it is onerous - and dysfunctional behaviour.

Proper socialism, this one.

Yes; two. I've also benefitted from help from my parents for uni costs (I paid for my postgraduate fees out of my own salary), a wedding present, a deposit on our first flat and a few other things. All that comes to considerably less than £125K and I wasn't living in penury. I agree people will try to find ways around it and I've already said that it's crudely drafted. But more generally, I think there are more important ways to help your children than just paying all their bills.

rjsterry wrote:

It's never been just about journey time. Capacity is far more of an issue.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ssures.pdf

I'm not saying the project is wrong on an absolute scale. However, given that there is widespread underinvestment / are opportunities for infrastructure improvement aplenty, why is this the project we are getting? One that helps move people to London very slightly quicker when that is one of the fastest, easiest and most comfortable journeys you can make from anywhere in the country? Yes, there are benefits, but, on a scale, it is not a compelling need imho.

Given that it was a policy driven by the government of 'The Northern Powerhouse', linking east to west efficiently could be a real game changer in mobilising the workforce and opportunities. Crossing the Pennines as part of a daily commute is a pasttime for the truly dedicated.

Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and literally scores of minor cities and major towns that are not geographically huge distances apart are very slow to move between and the journey quality is generally on a sliding scale of meh to poor.

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

McDonnell looking in detail at taxing anyone whom want to give their kids some financial support as well as bringing the large majority of family homes [in London] into IHT.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/john-mcdonnell-accused-of-tax-raid-on-londoners-amid-claims-80-of-homes-would-be-hit-by-planned-a4179371.html

£250K will get you a 3-bed house in quite a lot of the UK and then there's all those who don't even own property.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/family ... nder-250k/

£250k will bring you into scope of this as Labour's proposed limit is £125k.

And that's not just about property or just on death - it's all gifts made over your lifetime. So looks like things like paying your kids uni fees or giving the something towards their wedding or deposit on a flat would count. Appealing?

Unpopular, but I like it. I'd just tax other gifts during lifetime as income.

I do too - I think it's one of those things that feels like a terrible imposition but really isn't. It's unearned income as far as the recipient is concerned. Your kids aren't a charity.

So why have any allowance?

These nasty bourgeois types giving their kids money, how dare they...

You're putting an emotional spin on it, implying that because it might be desirable to society as a whole to tax this, there is something wrong with the people who seek to improve their children's lot.

Instinctively, I blanch at my money being taken by the government, but can see that it may not be ideal for 100% of wealth to stay with the family. I don't think you need to be socialist to accept that. It depends on the rate it is to be taxed at. If it isn't something like 95% (which McDonnell would probably like), then it's not stopping you giving money to your kids, it's just taxing their income.

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Dabber wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

McDonnell looking in detail at taxing anyone whom want to give their kids some financial support as well as bringing the large majority of family homes [in London] into IHT.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/john-mcdonnell-accused-of-tax-raid-on-londoners-amid-claims-80-of-homes-would-be-hit-by-planned-a4179371.html

£250K will get you a 3-bed house in quite a lot of the UK and then there's all those who don't even own property.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/family ... nder-250k/

£250k will bring you into scope of this as Labour's proposed limit is £125k.

And that's not just about property or just on death - it's all gifts made over your lifetime. So looks like things like paying your kids uni fees or giving the something towards their wedding or deposit on a flat would count. Appealing?

I mentioned £250K as that was the figure the ES was hyperventilating about. £125K still gives plenty of scope for some help with uni costs, a wedding present and a deposit on a first home, and it's not as if you can't give more than that. It's a bit crude and I suspect designed as much for the headlines as for the actual economics of it, but I'm not fundamentally opposed to it.

Do you have kids? One issue here is that if this limit applies to the donor - and let's say they have 3 or 4 kids - they will be stuffed. Milking the rich for tax is one thing but this will impact a very large number of ordinary people (ordinary in the financial sense).

Also once this become clearer, people will either find a way round it, or go p1ss their money up the proverbial wall instead of giving their kids a helping hand in life. I.e. it will simply create avoidance as it is onerous - and dysfunctional behaviour.

Proper socialism, this one.

Exactly. If this comes in I'd rather p1ss my money away myself than let the government/state p1ss away.
Because I can be sure of one thing.... they will certainly p1ss it away.

There will be ways around this for sure, it is one of those like IHT that will be riddled with holes.

That said, I'm quite happy for other people not to help their kids (as it gives mine a competitive advantage) while they bask in their egalitarian glow

It's more about teaching them to stand on their own two feet, a more useful life skill than phoning your folks for some cash.

Oh for sure mine will do that. But I still reserve the right to help her along the way until she can do that, for example by helping fund her through uni until she gets out and working.

A bit of struggle never hurt anyone. Makes you appreciate things more
There's a whole separate argument about whether training to become a vet or an architect should cost so much that it relies on parents supporting their children to make the system work. Not sure it is a good thing for either to become essentially a hobby.

TheBigBean wrote:

You used to be able to train to become a vet without parental support.

Precisely. And salaries in both professions are static or falling.

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

You used to be able to train to become a vet without parental support.

Precisely. And salaries in both professions are static or falling.

In finance parlance I would imagine they both have high betas I.e. they do well in general boom times and badly in recessions.

TheBigBean wrote:

You used to be able to train to become a vet without parental support.

It's pretty marginal as to whether the fees required to become a vet at current prices even make it worthwhile due to the pretty low salaries across the profession - and that is for veterinary surgeons, I'm not talking about nurses.

Specialists can get more, sure, but the training for that is even more astronomically expensive.

It's crazy. Cheaper to go to private school and skip uni altogether and go straight into a vocational training scheme (such as accountancy where they are recruiting straight from school).

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Dont worry, though, if it ever does happen I will find a way around it.

Not really in the spirit of the tax, is it?

It is, given that the current version IHT has been effectively voluntary with a bit of sensible planning and absent unexpected deaths.

It is also a very natural reaction to an onerous tax.

Not sure there is such a thing as a spirit of a tax, is there? Just a question of how well drafted the rules are.

If you accept the basic principle that unearned income should be taxed as well as earned income then we're just debating particular thresholds and rates. Personally I think they'd be better off not distinguishing between types of income and adjusting the rates accordingly.