Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BillyStubbsTears on November 17, 2023, 01:39:48 pm
-
If you wanted proof that the Tories have given up on the next Election and are looking to line their own pockets before they go, here you are.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67448602
Hunt has been saying for 12 months that there's no money for tax cuts or for decent pay rises for nurses and teachers. Yet it looks like he's found money to cut a tax that applies to only the wealthiest 4% of the population.
Tories gonna Tory, of course.
-
Now if Alfie May was in charge........
-
Well obviously we'd inherit the Earth.
-
Well obviously we'd inherit the Earth.
And you STILL wouldn't appreciate him!
-
Well obviously we'd inherit the Earth.
And you STILL wouldn't appreciate him!
I'm sure that comment made sense to you, but....nope. Beats me.
-
Too taxing for you?
-
If you wanted proof that the Tories have given up on the next Election and are looking to line their own pockets before they go, here you are.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67448602
Hunt has been saying for 12 months that there's no money for tax cuts or for decent pay rises for nurses and teachers. Yet it looks like he's found money to cut a tax that applies to only the wealthiest 4% of the population.
Tories gonna Tory, of course.
Another reason why they should be consigned to the dustbin. Tories work for minority not the majority
-
If you wanted proof that the Tories have given up on the next Election and are looking to line their own pockets before they go, here you are.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67448602
Hunt has been saying for 12 months that there's no money for tax cuts or for decent pay rises for nurses and teachers. Yet it looks like he's found money to cut a tax that applies to only the wealthiest 4% of the population.
Tories gonna Tory, of course.
Another reason why they should be consigned to the dustbin. Tories work for minority not the majority
How does that work in politics?
-
If you wanted proof that the Tories have given up on the next Election and are looking to line their own pockets before they go, here you are.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67448602
Hunt has been saying for 12 months that there's no money for tax cuts or for decent pay rises for nurses and teachers. Yet it looks like he's found money to cut a tax that applies to only the wealthiest 4% of the population.
Tories gonna Tory, of course.
Another reason why they should be consigned to the dustbin. Tories work for minority not the majority
How does that work in politics?
It's all about psychology
-
Ah right! Care to explain?
-
Ah right! Care to explain?
Essentially the Tories and Labour are very clever at making you believe in something whether it is against the public sector, strikes, austerity.
Obviously I can see you are defensive on some of the things I state however from supporting the Tories/Labour you are basically supporting people who aren't anything like us. Basically rich people.
And the general public are too gullible to fall for it which is sad to see.
So here they cut inheritance tax for the 4% wealthy. However there isn't enough money for public services.
It's all about priorities.
And with Labour you won't get much better. People should vote with their feet make a difference, you always hear the same old 'it's not worth voting or nothing will ever change'. It is how they get into your heads and it just gives them more power to do what they want.
And worse is yet to come.
-
My point is how do you get enough votes to win an election if you work for the minority and not the majority?
-
My point is how do you get enough votes to win an election if you work for the minority and not the majority?
Tories work for their rich friends, they serve themselves not us.
-
But the rich friends of the Tories are only a tiny representation of voters, how did the Tory party win by a landslide in 2019?
-
But the rich friends of the Tories are only a tiny representation of voters, how did the Tory party win by a landslide in 2019?
Makes you wonder doesn't it
-
Ah right! Care to explain?
Essentially the Tories and Labour are very clever at making you believe in something whether it is against the public sector, strikes, austerity.
Obviously I can see you are defensive on some of the things I state however from supporting the Tories/Labour you are basically supporting people who aren't anything like us. Basically rich people.
And the general public are too gullible to fall for it which is sad to see.
So here they cut inheritance tax for the 4% wealthy. However there isn't enough money for public services.
It's all about priorities.
And with Labour you won't get much better. People should vote with their feet make a difference, you always hear the same old 'it's not worth voting or nothing will ever change'. It is how they get into your heads and it just gives them more power to do what they want.
And worse is yet to come.
rtid91, I do believe that some posters on here try to brainwash people in the same way.
Repeating the same rhetoric day after day.
-
True Hound. We should have a Three Degrees of Tory Hatred Board in the Forum so that those of us who want to turn every thread into one about Tory hatred can indulge ourselves freely.
-
Ah right! Care to explain?
Essentially the Tories and Labour are very clever at making you believe in something whether it is against the public sector, strikes, austerity.
Obviously I can see you are defensive on some of the things I state however from supporting the Tories/Labour you are basically supporting people who aren't anything like us. Basically rich people.
And the general public are too gullible to fall for it which is sad to see.
So here they cut inheritance tax for the 4% wealthy. However there isn't enough money for public services.
It's all about priorities.
And with Labour you won't get much better. People should vote with their feet make a difference, you always hear the same old 'it's not worth voting or nothing will ever change'. It is how they get into your heads and it just gives them more power to do what they want.
And worse is yet to come.
rtid91, I do believe that some posters on here try to brainwash people in the same way.
Repeating the same rhetoric day after day.
And some people agree with it, and some don't. Which makes for good debate.
-
If you think good debate is searching the internet to find anything anti-government, and believing it, whilst disregarding any alternative account of events as a lie, you're in the right place!
-
If you think good debate is searching the internet to find anything anti-government, and believing it, whilst disregarding any alternative account of events as a lie, you're in the right place!
Don't let them divide us, it's about sticking together !
-
The thing is, rtid91, I don't want to stick together with some of the posters on this forum.
-
My point is how do you get enough votes to win an election if you work for the minority and not the majority?
When you know you're definitely going to lose the next election, that's the time you do all the unpopular (or self-serving) stuff that could well lose you an election you might win otherwise.
-
My point is how do you get enough votes to win an election if you work for the minority and not the majority?
When you know you're definitely going to lose the next election, that's the time you do all the unpopular (or self-serving) stuff that could well lose you an election you might win otherwise.
So, as BB asked, how did the Tory’s win by a landslide in 2019.
Are you saying they were just looking after their mates pre election, or was it that not enough people trusted Labour to run the country.
-
My guess would be not enough people trusted Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn to run the country.
-
But the rich friends of the Tories are only a tiny representation of voters, how did the Tory party win by a landslide in 2019?
Really?
Most voters will go with where the beeb, the Sun etc sends them. Why otherwise would turkeys vote for Christmas?
Add on the desperate efforts the establishment will go in its propaganda and lies to avoid policies that do serve the many rather than the few.
The proposed dumping of inheritance tax is disgusting. Most people don't even know how it works and believe they might be affected. If they are affected and they therefore vote tory then they're not fit for life, just greedy spongers.
-
Is that the same BEEB whose presenters have a significant left-wing bias?
-
But the rich friends of the Tories are only a tiny representation of voters, how did the Tory party win by a landslide in 2019?
Really?
Most voters will go with where the beeb, the Sun etc sends them. Why otherwise would turkeys vote for Christmas?
Add on the desperate efforts the establishment will go in its propaganda and lies to avoid policies that do serve the many rather than the few.
The proposed dumping of inheritance tax is disgusting. Most people don't even know how it works and believe they might be affected. If they are affected and they therefore vote tory then they're not fit for life, just greedy spongers.
That last sentence BR, is a classic Labour supporter VSC poster trait.
If you vote Tory you must be thick.
There are several of our posters who put that line on here.
Also, if someone has sufficient assets to have to pay inheritance tax after they die, is it likely that they are a sponger?
-
My point is how do you get enough votes to win an election if you work for the minority and not the majority?
When you know you're definitely going to lose the next election, that's the time you do all the unpopular (or self-serving) stuff that could well lose you an election you might win otherwise.
So, as BB asked, how did the Tory’s win by a landslide in 2019.
Are you saying they were just looking after their mates pre election, or was it that not enough people trusted Labour to run the country.
Read and ye shall discover true meaning.
BB didn't ask about 2019 in his post I quoted so I didn't address it.
And I said nothing about the last election, nor any specific party so I don't know why you think I did.
-
My point is how do you get enough votes to win an election if you work for the minority and not the majority?
When you know you're definitely going to lose the next election, that's the time you do all the unpopular (or self-serving) stuff that could well lose you an election you might win otherwise.
So, as BB asked, how did the Tory’s win by a landslide in 2019.
Are you saying they were just looking after their mates pre election, or was it that not enough people trusted Labour to run the country.
Read and ye shall discover true meaning.
BB didn't ask about 2019 in his post I quoted so I didn't address it.
And I said nothing about the last election, nor any specific party so I don't know why you think I did.
Now that you've seen my post (reply 13), how about answering it now, then?
-
My point is how do you get enough votes to win an election if you work for the minority and not the majority?
When you know you're definitely going to lose the next election, that's the time you do all the unpopular (or self-serving) stuff that could well lose you an election you might win otherwise.
So, as BB asked, how did the Tory’s win by a landslide in 2019.
Are you saying they were just looking after their mates pre election, or was it that not enough people trusted Labour to run the country.
Read and ye shall discover true meaning.
BB didn't ask about 2019 in his post I quoted so I didn't address it.
And I said nothing about the last election, nor any specific party so I don't know why you think I did.
Well if you are being picky, I will be too.
BB didn’t ask about what to do if you want to lose an election but you chose to comment on that.
-
My point is how do you get enough votes to win an election if you work for the minority and not the majority?
When you know you're definitely going to lose the next election, that's the time you do all the unpopular (or self-serving) stuff that could well lose you an election you might win otherwise.
So, as BB asked, how did the Tory’s win by a landslide in 2019.
Are you saying they were just looking after their mates pre election, or was it that not enough people trusted Labour to run the country.
Read and ye shall discover true meaning.
BB didn't ask about 2019 in his post I quoted so I didn't address it.
And I said nothing about the last election, nor any specific party so I don't know why you think I did.
Well if you are being picky, I will be too.
BB didn’t ask about what to do if you want to lose an election but you chose to comment on that.
I didn't say anything about wanting to lose an election either so f**k knows what you're being picky about. You really ought to try reading and replying to what people actually write instead of what you convince yourself they've written.
-
But the rich friends of the Tories are only a tiny representation of voters, how did the Tory party win by a landslide in 2019?
Really?
Most voters will go with where the beeb, the Sun etc sends them. Why otherwise would turkeys vote for Christmas?
Add on the desperate efforts the establishment will go in its propaganda and lies to avoid policies that do serve the many rather than the few.
The proposed dumping of inheritance tax is disgusting. Most people don't even know how it works and believe they might be affected. If they are affected and they therefore vote tory then they're not fit for life, just greedy spongers.
I'm still trying to work out what this paragraph's actually saying,
Anyone, no me neither!
-
My point is how do you get enough votes to win an election if you work for the minority and not the majority?
When you know you're definitely going to lose the next election, that's the time you do all the unpopular (or self-serving) stuff that could well lose you an election you might win otherwise.
So, as BB asked, how did the Tory’s win by a landslide in 2019.
Are you saying they were just looking after their mates pre election, or was it that not enough people trusted Labour to run the country.
Read and ye shall discover true meaning.
BB didn't ask about 2019 in his post I quoted so I didn't address it.
And I said nothing about the last election, nor any specific party so I don't know why you think I did.
Well if you are being picky, I will be too.
BB didn’t ask about what to do if you want to lose an election but you chose to comment on that.
I didn't say anything about wanting to lose an election either so f**k knows what you're being picky about. You really ought to try reading and replying to what people actually write instead of what you convince yourself they've written.
Kin ell Glyn, ok, you didn’t say anything about WANTING to lose an election but you did expand on what a government might do if they know they are going to lose an election.
And BB hadn’t mentioned anything about that.
FFS, you are so difficult to have a meaningful conversation with.
-
My point is how do you get enough votes to win an election if you work for the minority and not the majority?
When you know you're definitely going to lose the next election, that's the time you do all the unpopular (or self-serving) stuff that could well lose you an election you might win otherwise.
So, as BB asked, how did the Tory’s win by a landslide in 2019.
Are you saying they were just looking after their mates pre election, or was it that not enough people trusted Labour to run the country.
Read and ye shall discover true meaning.
BB didn't ask about 2019 in his post I quoted so I didn't address it.
And I said nothing about the last election, nor any specific party so I don't know why you think I did.
Well if you are being picky, I will be too.
BB didn’t ask about what to do if you want to lose an election but you chose to comment on that.
I didn't say anything about wanting to lose an election either so f**k knows what you're being picky about. You really ought to try reading and replying to what people actually write instead of what you convince yourself they've written.
Kin ell Glyn, ok, you didn’t say anything about WANTING to lose an election but you did expand on what a government might do if they know they are going to lose an election.
And BB hadn’t mentioned anything about that.
FFS, you are so difficult to have a meaningful conversation with.
Of course BB didn't mention it, because it was my answer to his original question. If he already knew the answer he wouldn't have asked the question!!
Oh, and I didn't expand on anything. How could I, I was the first to talk about what a government could do if they knew they were going to lose and election.
Jesus wept. You're bloody difficult to talk to full stop because you don't understand written English, or pretend not to, it's hard to tell with you.
-
My point is how do you get enough votes to win an election if you work for the minority and not the majority?
When you know you're definitely going to lose the next election, that's the time you do all the unpopular (or self-serving) stuff that could well lose you an election you might win otherwise.
So, as BB asked, how did the Tory’s win by a landslide in 2019.
Are you saying they were just looking after their mates pre election, or was it that not enough people trusted Labour to run the country.
Read and ye shall discover true meaning.
BB didn't ask about 2019 in his post I quoted so I didn't address it.
And I said nothing about the last election, nor any specific party so I don't know why you think I did.
Well if you are being picky, I will be too.
BB didn’t ask about what to do if you want to lose an election but you chose to comment on that.
I didn't say anything about wanting to lose an election either so f**k knows what you're being picky about. You really ought to try reading and replying to what people actually write instead of what you convince yourself they've written.
Kin ell Glyn, ok, you didn’t say anything about WANTING to lose an election but you did expand on what a government might do if they know they are going to lose an election.
And BB hadn’t mentioned anything about that.
FFS, you are so difficult to have a meaningful conversation with.
Of course BB didn't mention it, because it was my answer to his original question. If he already knew the answer he wouldn't have asked the question!!
Oh, and I didn't expand on anything. How could I, I was the first to talk about what a government could do if they knew they were going to lose and election.
Jesus wept. You're bloody difficult to talk to full stop because you don't understand written English, or pretend not to, it's hard to tell with you.
I very often think the same about you.
-
It is always incredibly difficult to have a conversation with someone who continually talks about imaginary b*llocks that I haven't written, isn't it?
-
It is always incredibly difficult to have a conversation with someone who continually talks about imaginary b*llocks that I haven't written, isn't it?
Now that you've seen my post (reply 13), how about answering it now, then?
-
It is always incredibly difficult to have a conversation with someone who continually talks about imaginary b*llocks that I haven't written, isn't it?
Now that you've seen my post (reply 13), how about answering it now, then?
Why should I? It wasn't a reply directed at me so I can't be bothered to.
-
So Hound hounds and Wigley wiggles. Fair enough!
-
So Hound hounds and Wigley wiggles. Fair enough!
You were replying to roverstillidie91 but you seem to be labouring under the delusion that I should somehow speak for him and have an obligation to do so. What a massive and misguided egotrip you're on.
-
But the rich friends of the Tories are only a tiny representation of voters, how did the Tory party win by a landslide in 2019?
Really?
Most voters will go with where the beeb, the Sun etc sends them. Why otherwise would turkeys vote for Christmas?
Add on the desperate efforts the establishment will go in its propaganda and lies to avoid policies that do serve the many rather than the few.
The proposed dumping of inheritance tax is disgusting. Most people don't even know how it works and believe they might be affected. If they are affected and they therefore vote tory then they're not fit for life, just greedy spongers.
That last sentence BR, is a classic Labour supporter VSC poster trait.
If you vote Tory you must be thick.
There are several of our posters who put that line on here.
Also, if someone has sufficient assets to have to pay inheritance tax after they die, is it likely that they are a sponger?
And this is classic from you hound, interpret it to the worst possible meaning.
-
So Hound hounds and Wigley wiggles. Fair enough!
You were replying to roverstillidie91 but you seem to be labouring under the delusion that I should somehow speak for him and have an obligation to do so. What a massive and misguided egotrip you're on.
It's plainly obvious that you have an obligation to get involved in threads that I'm involved in, for the sole reason of supporting whoever is in disagreement with me.
That is not delusion, that is a fact.
-
But the rich friends of the Tories are only a tiny representation of voters, how did the Tory party win by a landslide in 2019?
Really?
Most voters will go with where the beeb, the Sun etc sends them. Why otherwise would turkeys vote for Christmas?
Add on the desperate efforts the establishment will go in its propaganda and lies to avoid policies that do serve the many rather than the few.
The proposed dumping of inheritance tax is disgusting. Most people don't even know how it works and believe they might be affected. If they are affected and they therefore vote tory then they're not fit for life, just greedy spongers.
That last sentence BR, is a classic Labour supporter VSC poster trait.
If you vote Tory you must be thick.
There are several of our posters who put that line on here.
Also, if someone has sufficient assets to have to pay inheritance tax after they die, is it likely that they are a sponger?
And this is classic from you hound, interpret it to the worst possible meaning.
Which bit are you talking about?
-
It is always incredibly difficult to have a conversation with someone who continually talks about imaginary b*llocks that I haven't written, isn't it?
You can usually change the direction of a conversation.
-
It is always incredibly difficult to have a conversation with someone who continually talks about imaginary b*llocks that I haven't written, isn't it?
It's the actual b*llocks that you have written that I have a problem with.
-
So Hound hounds and Wigley wiggles. Fair enough!
You were replying to roverstillidie91 but you seem to be labouring under the delusion that I should somehow speak for him and have an obligation to do so. What a massive and misguided egotrip you're on.
It's plainly obvious that you have an obligation to get involved in threads that I'm involved in, for the sole reason of supporting whoever is in disagreement with me.
That is not delusion, that is a fact.
There goes that egotrip again.
-
If I had aspirations of an ego trip I'd go a bit higher than a fourth-division off-topic football forum.
-
If I had aspirations of an ego trip I'd go a bit higher than a fourth-division off-topic football forum.
that's true, you once mused about being a moderator ..................
-
But the rich friends of the Tories are only a tiny representation of voters, how did the Tory party win by a landslide in 2019?
Really?
Most voters will go with where the beeb, the Sun etc sends them. Why otherwise would turkeys vote for Christmas?
Add on the desperate efforts the establishment will go in its propaganda and lies to avoid policies that do serve the many rather than the few.
The proposed dumping of inheritance tax is disgusting. Most people don't even know how it works and believe they might be affected. If they are affected and they therefore vote tory then they're not fit for life, just greedy spongers.
That last sentence BR, is a classic Labour supporter VSC poster trait.
If you vote Tory you must be thick.
There are several of our posters who put that line on here.
Also, if someone has sufficient assets to have to pay inheritance tax after they die, is it likely that they are a sponger?
You missed the point by a presumption and misreading caused by your agenda. If someone has that much money and are persuaded to vote tory for more money, thus taking funds from poorer people, they aren't fit for life. If someone votes tory for other reasons, I wouldn't say they were necessarily thick, but likely they make choices based on ingredients of insecurity, fear, selfishness, cooked in an oven of self entitlement and/or paternalistic powerlessness.
-
It is interesting that we seem to think taxing death is fair, I don't really. I'd argue we'd be better off increasing tax on the super rich whilst they're still alive rather than taxing something that already was taxed in the first place.
If I died tomorrow I don't really think it's fair my 4 and 5 year old will pay 40% tax on what they inherit. It just feels such a negative thing to me.
-
It's all comparative pud
-
If I had aspirations of an ego trip I'd go a bit higher than a fourth-division off-topic football forum.
that's true, you once mused about being a moderator ..................
If I had aspirations of an ego trip I'd go a bit higher than a fourth-division off-topic football forum.
that's true, you once mused about being a moderator ..................
If I'd had aspirations of an ego trip I'd have probably taken up the offer of being a moderator, Sydnaye. That was in the days before the loony left brigade ruined the forum.
-
But the rich friends of the Tories are only a tiny representation of voters, how did the Tory party win by a landslide in 2019?
Really?
Most voters will go with where the beeb, the Sun etc sends them. Why otherwise would turkeys vote for Christmas?
Add on the desperate efforts the establishment will go in its propaganda and lies to avoid policies that do serve the many rather than the few.
The proposed dumping of inheritance tax is disgusting. Most people don't even know how it works and believe they might be affected. If they are affected and they therefore vote tory then they're not fit for life, just greedy spongers.
That last sentence BR, is a classic Labour supporter VSC poster trait.
If you vote Tory you must be thick.
There are several of our posters who put that line on here.
Also, if someone has sufficient assets to have to pay inheritance tax after they die, is it likely that they are a sponger?
You missed the point by a presumption and misreading caused by your agenda. If someone has that much money and are persuaded to vote tory for more money, thus taking funds from poorer people, they aren't fit for life. If someone votes tory for other reasons, I wouldn't say they were necessarily thick, but likely they make choices based on ingredients of insecurity, fear, selfishness, cooked in an oven of self entitlement and/or paternalistic powerlessness.
No misreading of anything by myself BR, just commenting on how your post is very similar in type to many put on here by anti government people.
In your response you have actually made several assumptions yourself so I don’t think you can lecture me about doing the same.
In any society there are people who are well off and others who aren’t but to say that the well off are not fit for life is well out of order.
Plenty of people who are in a very comfortable financial position do much to help those not so fortunate so if they vote Tory would you say that they are not fit for life
Someone wrote on here some time ago that a good socialist is someone who is good at spending other people’s money.
-
The UK has the joint 4th highest inheritance tax rates in the OECD.
Of the 38 OECD members, 10 countries have abolished inheritance tax since the 1970s, and 2 have never taxed wealth transfers. Countries that have abolished estate taxes relatively recently include Austria and Sweden.
-
What concerns you about inheritance tax bb?
-
What concerns you about abolishing inheritance tax, Sydnaye?
-
nothing at all bring it on and more
-
It's all comparative pud
I have zero idea what you mean. What do you think about the tax?
-
The UK has the joint 4th highest inheritance tax rates in the OECD.
Of the 38 OECD members, 10 countries have abolished inheritance tax since the 1970s, and 2 have never taxed wealth transfers. Countries that have abolished estate taxes relatively recently include Austria and Sweden.
So you're not opposed to an inheritance tax, just opposed to bst starting a topic
-
The UK has the joint 4th highest inheritance tax rates in the OECD.
Of the 38 OECD members, 10 countries have abolished inheritance tax since the 1970s, and 2 have never taxed wealth transfers. Countries that have abolished estate taxes relatively recently include Austria and Sweden.
So you're not opposed to an inheritance tax, just opposed to bst starting a topic
I can’t see anywhere in BBs post that he said anything like that Syd.
Can you be good enough to explain.
-
you're a silly boy hound, go right back to the first few comments, haven't you learned yet after all this time, bb turns a topic into an argument, you rush in to defend bb and oppose billy, bb exits and leaves you asking more silly questions.
-
Sydnaye, My brilliant response to Billy's OP was hardly a private joke, and if you kept up you would understand that.
Now, stop changing the subject and answer the questions put to you, there's a good lad.
-
nothing's private on the forum, haven't you noticed (or taken notes) bb
-
Who said anything was?
Now, stop changing the subject and answer the questions put to you, there's a good lad.
-
you're the last person on the forum in a position to demand anything bb
I'll rephrase that to be less combative, are you in a position to demand anything bb?
-
you're the last person on the forum in a position to demand anything bb
And who's the first?
You change the subject repeatedly because you can't answer the questions put to you. You don't even know what you stand for, you just stand against anything the government says or does.
-
whatever you say bb
-
Good, now stand aside and let one of the bigger boys take over.
-
you're the last person on the forum in a position to demand anything bb
And who's the first?
You change the subject repeatedly because you can't answer the questions put to you. You don't even know what you stand for, you just stand against anything the government says or does.
Which is what I imagine the majority of the posters on here think
-
https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ?si=OSCoJAufQ1qywJMC
Monty Python sketch summing up this thread and loads of others
-
you're the last person on the forum in a position to demand anything bb
And who's the first?
You change the subject repeatedly because you can't answer the questions put to you. You don't even know what you stand for, you just stand against anything the government says or does.
Which is what I imagine the majority of the posters on here think
Bang on rtid91.
He is just confrontational most of the time and hardly ever posts on a football topic, on a football forum.
-
you're the last person on the forum in a position to demand anything bb
And who's the first?
You change the subject repeatedly because you can't answer the questions put to you. You don't even know what you stand for, you just stand against anything the government says or does.
Which is what I imagine the majority of the posters on here think
Bang on rtid91.
He is just confrontational most of the time and hardly ever posts on a football topic, on a football forum.
I am respectful of people's view on here and appreciate debate but certain posters take it too far, not very respectful and there's no need to be so irate.
-
https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ?si=OSCoJAufQ1qywJMC
Monty Python sketch summing up this thread and loads of others
I prefer the parrot sketch
-
https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ?si=OSCoJAufQ1qywJMC
Monty Python sketch summing up this thread and loads of others
And who actually started this thread, and loads of others knowing full well it would cause confrontation?
-
https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ?si=OSCoJAufQ1qywJMC
Monty Python sketch summing up this thread and loads of others
And who actually started this thread, and loads of others knowing full well it would cause confrontation?
Idiocy on ice skates now bb
-
https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ?si=OSCoJAufQ1qywJMC
Monty Python sketch summing up this thread and loads of others
And who actually started this thread, and loads of others knowing full well it would cause confrontation?
It's when you get full facts put forward to you that you don't agree with them I'd say going into defensive mode. It's probably best for your case on here to just not be easy bait.
What are your thoughts on the VIP lane and how OUR money got spent there? Removing inheritance tax from the rich and taking from the disabled (medication). And no pay rises for public sector workers.. then again they're trying to grow the economy to pay for this... well for the last 13 years seeing as Austerity did us all no favors just them and their mates
-
But the rich friends of the Tories are only a tiny representation of voters, how did the Tory party win by a landslide in 2019?
Really?
Most voters will go with where the beeb, the Sun etc sends them. Why otherwise would turkeys vote for Christmas?
Add on the desperate efforts the establishment will go in its propaganda and lies to avoid policies that do serve the many rather than the few.
The proposed dumping of inheritance tax is disgusting. Most people don't even know how it works and believe they might be affected. If they are affected and they therefore vote tory then they're not fit for life, just greedy spongers.
That last sentence BR, is a classic Labour supporter VSC poster trait.
If you vote Tory you must be thick.
There are several of our posters who put that line on here.
Also, if someone has sufficient assets to have to pay inheritance tax after they die, is it likely that they are a sponger?
You missed the point by a presumption and misreading caused by your agenda. If someone has that much money and are persuaded to vote tory for more money, thus taking funds from poorer people, they aren't fit for life. If someone votes tory for other reasons, I wouldn't say they were necessarily thick, but likely they make choices based on ingredients of insecurity, fear, selfishness, cooked in an oven of self entitlement and/or paternalistic powerlessness.
No misreading of anything by myself BR, just commenting on how your post is very similar in type to many put on here by anti government people.
In your response you have actually made several assumptions yourself so I don’t think you can lecture me about doing the same.
In any society there are people who are well off and others who aren’t but to say that the well off are not fit for life is well out of order.
Plenty of people who are in a very comfortable financial position do much to help those not so fortunate so if they vote Tory would you say that they are not fit for life
Someone wrote on here some time ago that a good socialist is someone who is good at spending other people’s money.
Point missed again. Ah, well.
-
https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ?si=OSCoJAufQ1qywJMC
Monty Python sketch summing up this thread and loads of others
And who actually started this thread, and loads of others knowing full well it would cause confrontation?
It's when you get full facts put forward to you that you don't agree with them I'd say going into defensive mode. It's probably best for your case on here to just not be easy bait.
What are your thoughts on the VIP lane and how OUR money got spent there? Removing inheritance tax from the rich and taking from the disabled (medication). And no pay rises for public sector workers.. then again they're trying to grow the economy to pay for this... well for the last 13 years seeing as Austerity did us all no favors just them and their mates
It is NOT a fact that the Tories have given up on the next Election and are looking to line their own pockets before they go. That is a one-sided biased opinion that was designed to provoke an argument.
-
and yet it didn't from yourself bb, just rabbiting on about alfie may
-
You are so uninformed, Sydnaye, you don't understand how much you're embarrassing yourself.
-
the personal touch bb, you do it so well
-
It is interesting that we seem to think taxing death is fair, I don't really. I'd argue we'd be better off increasing tax on the super rich whilst they're still alive rather than taxing something that already was taxed in the first place.
If I died tomorrow I don't really think it's fair my 4 and 5 year old will pay 40% tax on what they inherit. It just feels such a negative thing to me.
I think both are appropriate, and close the loopholes firmly, shut down all off shore scams, including those of UK islands.
As you hopefully know, your kids will only be taxed on inheritance over £325k, £500k if you keep it to your descendants. So up to £500k untaxed whatever your estate. A £million estate would still be passing on £800k. IMO that 40% should gradually be increased as the estate value increases, and all avoidance loopholes shut.
-
https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ?si=OSCoJAufQ1qywJMC
Monty Python sketch summing up this thread and loads of others
And who actually started this thread, and loads of others knowing full well it would cause confrontation?
It's when you get full facts put forward to you that you don't agree with them I'd say going into defensive mode. It's probably best for your case on here to just not be easy bait.
What are your thoughts on the VIP lane and how OUR money got spent there? Removing inheritance tax from the rich and taking from the disabled (medication). And no pay rises for public sector workers.. then again they're trying to grow the economy to pay for this... well for the last 13 years seeing as Austerity did us all no favors just them and their mates
It is NOT a fact that the Tories have given up on the next Election and are looking to line their own pockets before they go. That is a one-sided biased opinion that was designed to provoke an argument.
Yes they have been lining their own pockets not only in advance to the next election but also the last 13 years. Which is total fact.
-
No, it isn't a fact. You're confused. It is your opinion!
Unless you're just trying to provoke an argument like BST does.
-
No, it isn't a fact. You're confused. It is your opinion!
Unless you're just trying to provoke an argument like BST does.
I never try and provoke an argument it just isn't my style.
That's why trade unionists such as Mick Lynch always take new presenters and politicians to the cleaners because they have much more depth of knowledge and understanding of society and I dare say no Tory MP would want to go against him anytime soon.
-
Mick Lynch isn't all too keen on certain Labour policies either and is a staunch EU Leaver. I'm sure there are a few Labour politicians and pro-remain presenters who wouldn't relish taking him on.
However, Mick Lynch's opinion is just an opinion. Opinions are not facts.
-
Mick Lynch isn't all too keen on certain Labour policies either and is a staunch EU Leaver. I'm sure there are a few Labour politicians and pro-remain presenters who wouldn't relish taking him on.
However, Mick Lynch's opinion is just an opinion. Opinions are not facts.
With good reason. You can't just leave the EU and get what you want. Especially seeing as Tories are after going for the ECHR now seeing as they are trying to shut down protests and stopping striking because they're losing the argument.
Fact is Mick Lynch talks more sense than all the Tory MP's put together.
Just look at how embarrassing that Tory MP was with him on question time and still couldn't take him on even with a Tory audience.
-
Again, that is your opinion. Show me a clip of said QT moment and I'll respond by giving my opinion.
How do you think Keir Starmer and his cronies would handle a face-to-face with Mick Lynch?
-
Mick Lynch isn't all too keen on certain Labour policies either and is a staunch EU Leaver. I'm sure there are a few Labour politicians and pro-remain presenters who wouldn't relish taking him on.
However, Mick Lynch's opinion is just an opinion. Opinions are not facts.
With good reason. You can't just leave the EU and get what you want. Especially seeing as Tories are after going for the ECHR now seeing as they are trying to shut down protests and stopping striking because they're losing the argument.
Fact is Mick Lynch talks more sense than all the Tory MP's put together.
Just look at how embarrassing that Tory MP was with him on question time and still couldn't take him on even with a Tory audience.
Watch for the patterns 91, he doesn't answer direct question and creates arguments because he doesn't know the subject and gets rude when one points out his contradictions.
-
What contradictions have you pointed out, Sydnaye?
-
point proven
-
It is interesting that we seem to think taxing death is fair, I don't really. I'd argue we'd be better off increasing tax on the super rich whilst they're still alive rather than taxing something that already was taxed in the first place.
If I died tomorrow I don't really think it's fair my 4 and 5 year old will pay 40% tax on what they inherit. It just feels such a negative thing to me.
BFYP.
You could leave them £325,000 in cash and a £500,000 house without them paying a penny tax.
Isn't that enough to leave your kids?
-
No, it isn't a fact. You're confused. It is your opinion!
Unless you're just trying to provoke an argument like BST does.
I DO provoke arguments BB. I'll give you that.
The process is this.
1) I post something that I'm genuinely interested in.
2) You have nothing substantive to offer, so you drag the whole thing down into a cesspit of your own need to feel important.
Been happening for more years than I can count.
This is the telling post.
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=289382.msg1271171#msg1271171
You are totally incapable of having adult exchanges because you are constantly projecting YOUR need to have every exchange become a personal fight.
-
BST, no doubt your disciples will appreciate your latest example of bullshit in the post above. If you consider SydneyRovers posts to be examples of adult exchange then that just proves my point of your continuous rubbish.
-
Christ up above.
Have some self respect man.
-
But the rich friends of the Tories are only a tiny representation of voters, how did the Tory party win by a landslide in 2019?
Really?
Most voters will go with where the beeb, the Sun etc sends them. Why otherwise would turkeys vote for Christmas?
Add on the desperate efforts the establishment will go in its propaganda and lies to avoid policies that do serve the many rather than the few.
The proposed dumping of inheritance tax is disgusting. Most people don't even know how it works and believe they might be affected. If they are affected and they therefore vote tory then they're not fit for life, just greedy spongers.
That last sentence BR, is a classic Labour supporter VSC poster trait.
If you vote Tory you must be thick.
There are several of our posters who put that line on here.
Also, if someone has sufficient assets to have to pay inheritance tax after they die, is it likely that they are a sponger?
You missed the point by a presumption and misreading caused by your agenda. If someone has that much money and are persuaded to vote tory for more money, thus taking funds from poorer people, they aren't fit for life. If someone votes tory for other reasons, I wouldn't say they were necessarily thick, but likely they make choices based on ingredients of insecurity, fear, selfishness, cooked in an oven of self entitlement and/or paternalistic powerlessness.
No misreading of anything by myself BR, just commenting on how your post is very similar in type to many put on here by anti government people.
In your response you have actually made several assumptions yourself so I don’t think you can lecture me about doing the same.
In any society there are people who are well off and others who aren’t but to say that the well off are not fit for life is well out of order.
Plenty of people who are in a very comfortable financial position do much to help those not so fortunate so if they vote Tory would you say that they are not fit for life
Someone wrote on here some time ago that a good socialist is someone who is good at spending other people’s money.
Point missed again. Ah, well.
Not at all.
-
Again, that is your opinion. Show me a clip of said QT moment and I'll respond by giving my opinion.
How do you think Keir Starmer and his cronies would handle a face-to-face with Mick Lynch? + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHMFOqDLZvY
Absolute peach of an MP Rachel Mcclean https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mick+lynch+rachel+mclean
Watch from 2:43 defining the public https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgSUpyo86ZI
And I doubt they would it wouldn't be good PR.
What they don't realize a lot of the trade unionists are knowledgeable and know their industries better than the MP's.
Knowledge is power which they don't like, and now they're losing argument they bring in a public order bill, anti-strike bill. Which some of the public think will work but it won't.
I hope the Donny Tory MP enjoys his remaining 12-14 months in office before being voted out.
-
Christ up above.
Have some self respect man.
You have enough of that for both of us, only yours in misplaced, you supercilious sod.
-
Mick Lynch isn't all too keen on certain Labour policies either and is a staunch EU Leaver. I'm sure there are a few Labour politicians and pro-remain presenters who wouldn't relish taking him on.
However, Mick Lynch's opinion is just an opinion. Opinions are not facts.
With good reason. You can't just leave the EU and get what you want. Especially seeing as Tories are after going for the ECHR now seeing as they are trying to shut down protests and stopping striking because they're losing the argument.
Fact is Mick Lynch talks more sense than all the Tory MP's put together.
Just look at how embarrassing that Tory MP was with him on question time and still couldn't take him on even with a Tory audience.
Watch for the patterns 91, he doesn't answer direct question and creates arguments because he doesn't know the subject and gets rude when one points out his contradictions.
Jeeeeez.
That post really is taking the piss.
The man who never answers question trying to put down someone for not answering questions.
-
It is interesting that we seem to think taxing death is fair, I don't really. I'd argue we'd be better off increasing tax on the super rich whilst they're still alive rather than taxing something that already was taxed in the first place.
If I died tomorrow I don't really think it's fair my 4 and 5 year old will pay 40% tax on what they inherit. It just feels such a negative thing to me.
BFYP.
You could leave them £325,000 in cash and a £500,000 house without them paying a penny tax.
Isn't that enough to leave your kids?
No I don't believe it is, I don't particular think they should end up worse off than they would be by me being dead versus alive.
I'm not lost on the fact those thresholds are significantly more than I've ever had but I question why it's right to take that money when I die but not when I'm alive.
-
I think IT is either £325k or £500k if you are leaving your property to your children.
-
I think IT is either £325k or £500k if you are leaving your property to your children.
From the HMRC website:
“You can pass a home to your husband, wife or civil partner when you die. There’s no Inheritance Tax to pay if you do this.
If you leave the home to another person in your will, it counts towards the value of the estate.
If you own your home (or a share in it) your tax-free threshold can increase to £500,000 if:
* you leave it to your children (including adopted, foster or stepchildren) or grandchildren
* your estate is worth less than £2m.”
-
I think IT is either £325k or £500k if you are leaving your property to your children.
You're right. My mistake.
-
I think IT is either £325k or £500k if you are leaving your property to your children.
From the HMRC website:
“You can pass a home to your husband, wife or civil partner when you die. There’s no Inheritance Tax to pay if you do this.
If you leave the home to another person in your will, it counts towards the value of the estate.
If you own your home (or a share in it) your tax-free threshold can increase to £500,000 if:
* you leave it to your children (including adopted, foster or stepchildren) or grandchildren
* your estate is worth less than £2m.”
Seems reasonable.
-
It is interesting that we seem to think taxing death is fair, I don't really. I'd argue we'd be better off increasing tax on the super rich whilst they're still alive rather than taxing something that already was taxed in the first place.
If I died tomorrow I don't really think it's fair my 4 and 5 year old will pay 40% tax on what they inherit. It just feels such a negative thing to me.
BFYP.
You could leave them £325,000 in cash and a £500,000 house without them paying a penny tax.
Isn't that enough to leave your kids?
No I don't believe it is, I don't particular think they should end up worse off than they would be by me being dead versus alive.
I'm not lost on the fact those thresholds are significantly more than I've ever had but I question why it's right to take that money when I die but not when I'm alive.
They don't.
It is YOUR money when you are alive, not theirs.
They will have the opportunity to earn, just as you have done.
But maybe other kids will not have that opportunity in the world you'd want.
There is a strong body of economic evidence that says societies which allow a concentration of wealth to be handed down through generations end up with significantly less social mobility. In simple terms, if your parents are wealthy, it's far, far more likely that you will be wealthy and vice versa.
That's very bad for the future of society. I want a world where a smart kid from Denaby has a decent chance of succeeding, if they are as able as David Cameron's kids.
Partly because I'm from Denaby of course, so my support leans that way. But also because I want what's best for the future of this country. And that is a system that recognises, incentivised and rewards those who demonstrate ability, whether they are the kids of Lords or of manual workers.
Inheritance Tax is a means of evening out the playing field just a little. Reducing or cancelling it tilts the pitch in the direction of those whose parents are already wealthy. I think that's fundamentally wrong.
-
Hit the poor to benefit the wealthy
https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-hunt-considers-major-benefits-squeeze-to-help-slash-inheritance-tax-13010904
-
Bit of info by the way.
Something like 98% of all estates left by deceased Britons are worth less than £1m. The average Inheritance Tax bill for all of those is....2%.
If Hunt cuts IHT by 10% next week, it will save someone leaving £200k in cash and a £300k house to their kids, precisely zero.
However, someone leaving £2m and a house worth £3m to their kids will save £450,000.
Anyone who thinks that's a fair and equitable way to dole out tax cuts lives in a moral universe that I don't recognise.
-
Bit of info by the way.
Something like 98% of all estates left by deceased Britons are worth less than £1m. The average Inheritance Tax bill for all of those is....2%.
If Hunt cuts IHT by 10% next week, it will save someone leaving £200k in cash and a £300k house to their kids, precisely zero.
However, someone leaving £2m and a house worth £3m to their kids will save £450,000.
Anyone who thinks that's a fair and equitable way to dole out tax cuts lives in a moral universe that I don't recognise.
Like I said previously, it is all about priorities. Looking after their rich friends.
Make the public think like for example they're spending all this money on public services, all these benefits claimants are on a fortune.
Run them into the ground, make people hate it, tender out for private sector and then it just ends up being a worst service.
People need to wake up and see what is happening. They used psychology to achieve this. Demonizing the weakest and working their way up.
It is all caused mainly by the MSM. People should watch and read proper news and avoid the billionaire media and press like the plague.
-
Which proper news would you recommend that everyone watches and reads?
-
Hit the poor to benefit the wealthy
https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-hunt-considers-major-benefits-squeeze-to-help-slash-inheritance-tax-13010904
its a hard one on benefits, you have to fiind the right balance, when labour were in power you could earn around the same being on tax credits than a couple that worked full time, the tories have not given enough to certain people needing help
-
Times have changed. The old working class has become a new middle class with aspirations, who like to choose what is best for them and their families. They want a political party that won't punish them for being successful.
Inheritance tax is seen to be one of the most unfair taxes, according to a recent poll that shows 55% in favour of its abolishment, with only 33% in favour of retaining it.
-
Times have changed. The old working class has become a new middle class with aspirations, who like to choose what is best for them and their families. They want a political party that won't punish them for being successful.
Inheritance tax is seen to be one of the most unfair taxes, according to a recent poll that shows 55% in favour of its abolishment, with only 33% in favour of retaining it.
Come on BB, that will be shot down because it can’t be the poll that is correct.
Having said that, if the poll is correct then perhaps more people will decide to vote Tory than some are suggesting.
The first paragraph is bang on.
I’ve been saying that for years.
-
Again, that is your opinion. Show me a clip of said QT moment and I'll respond by giving my opinion.
How do you think Keir Starmer and his cronies would handle a face-to-face with Mick Lynch? + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHMFOqDLZvY
Absolute peach of an MP Rachel Mcclean https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mick+lynch+rachel+mclean
Watch from 2:43 defining the public https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgSUpyo86ZI
And I doubt they would it wouldn't be good PR.
What they don't realize a lot of the trade unionists are knowledgeable and know their industries better than the MP's.
Knowledge is power which they don't like, and now they're losing argument they bring in a public order bill, anti-strike bill. Which some of the public think will work but it won't.
I hope the Donny Tory MP enjoys his remaining 12-14 months in office before being voted out.
You can only guarantee to strive for no compulsory redundancies, you cannot guarantee them. What if nobody volunteers for voluntary redundancy?
-
Times have changed. The old working class has become a new middle class with aspirations, who like to choose what is best for them and their families. They want a political party that won't punish them for being successful.
Inheritance tax is seen to be one of the most unfair taxes, according to a recent poll that shows 55% in favour of its abolishment, with only 33% in favour of retaining it.
The new middle class... No, they're working class with delusions.
The working class with "aspirations" are those wanting inheritance tax stopped. Turkeys voting for Christmas, daft eh!
-
It's those with aspirations who DON'T want inheritance tax stopped who are like Turkeys voting for Christmas!
-
It's those with aspirations who DON'T want inheritance tax stopped who are like Turkeys voting for Christmas!
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=289382.msg1271264#msg1271264
-
Whatever, I don't think a tax break for a few who are already likely Conservative voters is going to help them much in their bid to win the next general election.
-
Whatever, I don't think a tax break for a few who are already likely Conservative voters is going to help them much in their bid to win the next general election.
And yet, RD, as BB points out, there's something about IHT that grabs people who are very, very unlikely ever to pay much if anything in IHT.
It's very strange. The level of self-deception that folk engage in on this topic.
Cameron announcing a planned reduction in IHT as a policy in 2007 gave the Tories a big poll bounce and spooked Brown out of an early election when he took over from Blair.
Very strange.
-
It's those with aspirations who DON'T want inheritance tax stopped who are like Turkeys voting for Christmas!
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=289382.msg1271264#msg1271264
You started this thread by saying If you wanted proof that the Tories have given up on the next Election and are looking to line their own pockets.
How is considering abolishing a tax that is unpopular with 55% of the public a sign that they have given up on the next election?
Times have changed. The old working class has become a new middle class with aspirations, who like to choose what is best for them and their families. They want a political party that won't punish them for being successful.
Inheritance tax is seen to be one of the most unfair taxes, according to a recent poll that shows 55% in favour of its abolishment, with only 33% in favour of retaining it.
-
But that would mean accepting that bb is debating in good faith
-
A tax that affects just a relative few won't register as we head into a recession.
-
It's those with aspirations who DON'T want inheritance tax stopped who are like Turkeys voting for Christmas!
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=289382.msg1271264#msg1271264
You started this thread by saying If you wanted proof that the Tories have given up on the next Election and are looking to line their own pockets.
How is considering abolishing a tax that is unpopular with 55% of the public a sign that they have given up on the next election?
Times have changed. The old working class has become a new middle class with aspirations, who like to choose what is best for them and their families. They want a political party that won't punish them for being successful.
Inheritance tax is seen to be one of the most unfair taxes, according to a recent poll that shows 55% in favour of its abolishment, with only 33% in favour of retaining it.
It's not going to win them the Election.
It's because they know that cutting IHT is a Very Bad Thing to do for the country as a whole. But a Very Good Thing for them and their mates.
They would only cut IHT when there's no comeback for them. Someone else will have to deal with the shit.
-
I didn't say it was going to win them the election, I said it seemed it would be a popular decision with the public, and certainly not something that would be responsible for them losing the General Election.
-
If you want to reduce taxes and you have the money to do so, reduce regressive taxes. Ones where the poor pay a bigger percentage of their income much than the rich.
Cut VAT for example.
Don't cut taxes which are predominantly paid by the already very rich.
Unless your aim is to just make the rich richer.
-
But you're changing the subject again. My point is that your OP is wrong and misleading.
-
I didn't say it was going to win them the election, I said it seemed it would be a popular decision with the public, and certainly not something that would be responsible for them losing the General Election.
With respect, you're confusing cause and effect in what I was saying in the OP.
I meant they are cutting IHT because they've given up on winning the election. Not they will lose the election because they are cutting IHT.
There are many instances when members of the electorate will support a policy in the mistaken belief that it will benefit them.
The electorate voted for Austerity in 2010, even though it was the most boneheadedly stupid economic policy in 80 years, and has contributed to us now earning about £10k per person per year less than we should be doing.
-
Na BST. You were wrong, and now you're trying to wriggle out of it.
I doubt it will bother you too much. You know too well that people will still stand by you.
Night night.
-
It's not changing the goalposts at all by the way. If you really do have a little bit of spare money to cut taxes (plot spoiler: they don't, but they are going to do this anyway) then cutting IHT is one of the very worst things you can do in the interests of the country as a whole.
But.
It DOES make the already wealthy a lot better off.
There are two intimately connected questions:
1) Is it in the long term interests of the country and the economy to cut taxes now?
2) If the answer to the above is "yes", what taxes should be cut in the best long term interests of the country and the economy?
The answer to 1) is "At this moment, no". But they are going to do it anyway.
The answer to 2) is "Absolutely not IHT". But they are going to do it anyway.
Because it will make the rich richer. And someone else will have to clean up the mess.
-
Na BST. You were wrong, and now you're trying to wriggle out of it.
I doubt it will bother you too much. You know too well that people will still stand by you.
Night night.
Ahh, stupid me. I thought you were wanting to discuss the pros and cons of IHT like an adult. When all along, you just wanted another personal argument.
I never learn do I?
-
On another day we'll address the rich leaving the country due to IHT.
-
On another day we'll address the rich leaving the country due to IHT.
evidence?
-
Jeez, there's some nonsense written on this thread, and people twisting figures to try and prove a point.
But I'm going to hold my hand up here and say that if my wife and I died tomorrow our kids would be faced with a rather large tax bill. My argument of course is that they shouldn't have to, and here's why.
Firstly BST with his opening post gets something wrong, he says it affects the 4% richest people in the country, when in actual fact that 4% applies to 4% of estates that fall into the IHT trap. Those very rich people that you talk about don't leave their estates to the vagaries of the tax man, no, they're rich enough to have moved all their assets and money around and out of the reaches of the tax man. That's one major reason why the current IHT rules don't work. IHT increasingly affects the normal working bloke because of the way the property market has moved in recent years.
And I would class myself as a normal working bloke. I grew up as one of 5 kids with a single parent. We lived in a council house and was as close to poverty as you can be. But I learnt lessons from my mum, and one of those was to work hard, and that's what I tried to do. I didn't have a fancy job either, just a bang average wage all my life, but what I did do was save. I did without the fancy car and holidays, instead I put money into my pension and on top of that I managed to build my own house by putting in the extra work, gave up evenings and weekends.
So, now I find myself with a reasonable pension pot and a house which puts me on the wrong side of the IHT trap. I've paid tax on all that money so that I could secure a future for me and my kids, and people on here suggest that losing 40% of that is OK? No, its not! Should I have squandered it along the way? Maybe. Does that put me on the right side of the argument that you guys seem to enjoy beating each other up about?
Its my money, and I should have the choice to do with it what I choose to do. If that's fancy cars and holidays then fair enough, why should me giving it to my children be any different?
-
Well said that man.
-
Jeez, there's some nonsense written on this thread, and people twisting figures to try and prove a point.
But I'm going to hold my hand up here and say that if my wife and I died tomorrow our kids would be faced with a rather large tax bill. My argument of course is that they shouldn't have to, and here's why.
Firstly BST with his opening post gets something wrong, he says it affects the 4% richest people in the country, when in actual fact that 4% applies to 4% of estates that fall into the IHT trap. Those very rich people that you talk about don't leave their estates to the vagaries of the tax man, no, they're rich enough to have moved all their assets and money around and out of the reaches of the tax man. That's one major reason why the current IHT rules don't work. IHT increasingly affects the normal working bloke because of the way the property market has moved in recent years.
And I would class myself as a normal working bloke. I grew up as one of 5 kids with a single parent. We lived in a council house and was as close to poverty as you can be. But I learnt lessons from my mum, and one of those was to work hard, and that's what I tried to do. I didn't have a fancy job either, just a bang average wage all my life, but what I did do was save. I did without the fancy car and holidays, instead I put money into my pension and on top of that I managed to build my own house by putting in the extra work, gave up evenings and weekends.
So, now I find myself with a reasonable pension pot and a house which puts me on the wrong side of the IHT trap. I've paid tax on all that money so that I could secure a future for me and my kids, and people on here suggest that losing 40% of that is OK? No, its not! Should I have squandered it along the way? Maybe. Does that put me on the right side of the argument that you guys seem to enjoy beating each other up about?
Its my money, and I should have the choice to do with it what I choose to do. If that's fancy cars and holidays then fair enough, why should me giving it to my children be any different?
Eloquently and simply put, Silent.
Your final paragraph should end the argument, but I doubt it will.
-
SM
You're right, it's 4% of estates. Do you have evidence that the richest exempt themselves from IHT?
The other figure I gave is still correct. Of all the estates below £1m, the average IHT take is 2%. For estates above £1m, the average IHT take is 17-20%.
So who benefits most from a cut in IHT.
Here's the point that you are not taking into account.
If you cut IHT, what else gives?
NHS funding?
Schools funding?
Defence funding?
Roads?
Rail?
Or do we put up VAT that disproportionately hits the poorer in society?
For what it's worth, under current rates and allowances, I would expect my own estate to be subject to a reasonably large IHT take. And that's fine. Because, yes, I've worked for my income. And I'd like my kids to enjoy some of that. And they will.
But I also acknowledge my responsibility to society. I grew up in a society that paid me to receive a degree education and a post-graduate qualification. That came out of the tax of other people. And I think I've got a responsibility to pay in so that bright kids from poor areas in future can get those opportunities.
It's about realising that your individual success isn't all about you.
-
Oh aye.
And if I were to die tomorrow, a decent chunk of my estate value would come from the fact that my house value has doubled since I bought it 11 years ago. I suspect that applies to many low end IHT cases.
I haven't earned that. But my benefit from that has come at the cost of many of the generation behind me being excluded from such wealth
Why should society not have the right to take a small percentage of that unearned wealth of mine and redistribute it?
-
Mrs Belton and I agreed, very early on in our relationship, that we would not be ‘savers’ and that we would spend our hard earned income on bringing our children up in a way that allowed us, as a family, to experience life together. We have always, by choice, spent what we earned on family ‘stuff’.
My kids will get little in terms of financial inheritance from us because of the choices we made. They would not have changed a thing in terms of their childhoods, and their current relationship with us.
They have benefited from the money we have earned and spent throughout their lives (nothing extravagant, just with little thought for the future).
If we had taken a different approach and saved, saved saved to leave them a tidy inheritance, why on earth should the government take another cut of the money we had earned and payed taxes on?
In this case, it absolutely IS all about us.
-
Jeez, there's some nonsense written on this thread, and people twisting figures to try and prove a point.
But I'm going to hold my hand up here and say that if my wife and I died tomorrow our kids would be faced with a rather large tax bill. My argument of course is that they shouldn't have to, and here's why.
Firstly BST with his opening post gets something wrong, he says it affects the 4% richest people in the country, when in actual fact that 4% applies to 4% of estates that fall into the IHT trap. Those very rich people that you talk about don't leave their estates to the vagaries of the tax man, no, they're rich enough to have moved all their assets and money around and out of the reaches of the tax man. That's one major reason why the current IHT rules don't work. IHT increasingly affects the normal working bloke because of the way the property market has moved in recent years.
And I would class myself as a normal working bloke. I grew up as one of 5 kids with a single parent. We lived in a council house and was as close to poverty as you can be. But I learnt lessons from my mum, and one of those was to work hard, and that's what I tried to do. I didn't have a fancy job either, just a bang average wage all my life, but what I did do was save. I did without the fancy car and holidays, instead I put money into my pension and on top of that I managed to build my own house by putting in the extra work, gave up evenings and weekends.
So, now I find myself with a reasonable pension pot and a house which puts me on the wrong side of the IHT trap. I've paid tax on all that money so that I could secure a future for me and my kids, and people on here suggest that losing 40% of that is OK? No, its not! Should I have squandered it along the way? Maybe. Does that put me on the right side of the argument that you guys seem to enjoy beating each other up about?
Its my money, and I should have the choice to do with it what I choose to do. If that's fancy cars and holidays then fair enough, why should me giving it to my children be any different?
Martin, that is a great summary of the way many of us feel about IHT.
We have paid our taxes along the way to where we are, some of us have taken risks with such as property and had they failed no one would have bailed us out would they.
I too would prefer anything I leave behind to go to my children and grandchildren without them having to pay a ridiculously high tax bill.
-
It's those with aspirations who DON'T want inheritance tax stopped who are like Turkeys voting for Christmas!
Havng aspirations and inheritance tax are only connected by IT enabling more to achieve.
-
Jeez, there's some nonsense written on this thread, and people twisting figures to try and prove a point.
But I'm going to hold my hand up here and say that if my wife and I died tomorrow our kids would be faced with a rather large tax bill. My argument of course is that they shouldn't have to, and here's why.
Firstly BST with his opening post gets something wrong, he says it affects the 4% richest people in the country, when in actual fact that 4% applies to 4% of estates that fall into the IHT trap. Those very rich people that you talk about don't leave their estates to the vagaries of the tax man, no, they're rich enough to have moved all their assets and money around and out of the reaches of the tax man. That's one major reason why the current IHT rules don't work. IHT increasingly affects the normal working bloke because of the way the property market has moved in recent years.
And I would class myself as a normal working bloke. I grew up as one of 5 kids with a single parent. We lived in a council house and was as close to poverty as you can be. But I learnt lessons from my mum, and one of those was to work hard, and that's what I tried to do. I didn't have a fancy job either, just a bang average wage all my life, but what I did do was save. I did without the fancy car and holidays, instead I put money into my pension and on top of that I managed to build my own house by putting in the extra work, gave up evenings and weekends.
So, now I find myself with a reasonable pension pot and a house which puts me on the wrong side of the IHT trap. I've paid tax on all that money so that I could secure a future for me and my kids, and people on here suggest that losing 40% of that is OK? No, its not! Should I have squandered it along the way? Maybe. Does that put me on the right side of the argument that you guys seem to enjoy beating each other up about?
Its my money, and I should have the choice to do with it what I choose to do. If that's fancy cars and holidays then fair enough, why should me giving it to my children be any different?
Bottom line is that if they're having to pay tax then they're the lucky ones.
-
Jeez, there's some nonsense written on this thread, and people twisting figures to try and prove a point.
But I'm going to hold my hand up here and say that if my wife and I died tomorrow our kids would be faced with a rather large tax bill. My argument of course is that they shouldn't have to, and here's why.
Firstly BST with his opening post gets something wrong, he says it affects the 4% richest people in the country, when in actual fact that 4% applies to 4% of estates that fall into the IHT trap. Those very rich people that you talk about don't leave their estates to the vagaries of the tax man, no, they're rich enough to have moved all their assets and money around and out of the reaches of the tax man. That's one major reason why the current IHT rules don't work. IHT increasingly affects the normal working bloke because of the way the property market has moved in recent years.
And I would class myself as a normal working bloke. I grew up as one of 5 kids with a single parent. We lived in a council house and was as close to poverty as you can be. But I learnt lessons from my mum, and one of those was to work hard, and that's what I tried to do. I didn't have a fancy job either, just a bang average wage all my life, but what I did do was save. I did without the fancy car and holidays, instead I put money into my pension and on top of that I managed to build my own house by putting in the extra work, gave up evenings and weekends.
So, now I find myself with a reasonable pension pot and a house which puts me on the wrong side of the IHT trap. I've paid tax on all that money so that I could secure a future for me and my kids, and people on here suggest that losing 40% of that is OK? No, its not! Should I have squandered it along the way? Maybe. Does that put me on the right side of the argument that you guys seem to enjoy beating each other up about?
Its my money, and I should have the choice to do with it what I choose to do. If that's fancy cars and holidays then fair enough, why should me giving it to my children be any different?
Bottom line is that if they're having to pay tax then they're the lucky ones.
Lucky??
You're just an idiot as you demonstrate time and time again.
-
SM
You're right, it's 4% of estates. Do you have evidence that the richest exempt themselves from IHT?
The other figure I gave is still correct. Of all the estates below £1m, the average IHT take is 2%. For estates above £1m, the average IHT take is 17-20%.
So who benefits most from a cut in IHT.
Here's the point that you are not taking into account.
If you cut IHT, what else gives?
NHS funding?
Schools funding?
Defence funding?
Roads?
Rail?
Or do we put up VAT that disproportionately hits the poorer in society?
For what it's worth, under current rates and allowances, I would expect my own estate to be subject to a reasonably large IHT take. And that's fine. Because, yes, I've worked for my income. And I'd like my kids to enjoy some of that. And they will.
But I also acknowledge my responsibility to society. I grew up in a society that paid me to receive a degree education and a post-graduate qualification. That came out of the tax of other people. And I think I've got a responsibility to pay in so that bright kids from poor areas in future can get those opportunities.
It's about realising that your individual success isn't all about you.
BST,
There's lots of articles about avoiding IHT, most people use trust funds to do so, just Google a few. There's a reason offshore trusts exist in the Cayman Islands!!
And your point about what little % is taken by IHT only increases the reasons for doing away with it altogether! People spend money avoiding it and HMRC spend a chunk of money trying to get their hands on it. Its not an efficient argument at all. The tax take is so small its not worth considering.
Your argument though is a little thin and fails to answer my question. I pointed out that I've already paid tax on my earnings, but I'm struggling to understand why you think another 40%should be handed over to the tax man because I was careful with what I earnt. Again I could have spent it and this argument wouldn't be taking place, but I didn't. My debt to society? What debt is that? I didn't have somebody pay for my education like you, as a mature student I paid for my own, as well as paying for my kids education too.
I worked hard and had a very tough time putting both my kids through university at the same time! But I did it because I thought it was the right thing to do. And I believe that my savings, if I have any left, should also benefit them.
There's every possibility that I won't be leaving enough to worry about, it could well be that HMRC will not impose anything on them when I'm gone, but I don't know that because I have no idea how long I'm going to live for. As I said at the beginning, if we both die tomorrow then there'll be a bill. But I'm hoping I won't!!
-
I was a bit concerned at Jeremy Hunt's idea for an inheritance tax giveaway to the rich, but he assured me that it will be fully funded by cuts to disability benefits. So that's OK.
Parody Rishie Sunak on X
-
SM
1) You wouldn't be handing over 40% of your estate to the country's coffers, as you well know. You'd be charged 40% on any estate value over £500k, assuming your house is passed onto your kids.
2) As I'm sure you also know, even that amount can be minimised by giving gifts to your kids in advance of your death.
3) Yes, I'm sure the richest have ways of minimising IHT, but I've quoted (and you've dismissed) official Govt figures, that the average IHT bill for an estate under £1m is 2% and the figure for estates greater than £1m is 17-20%. So clearly and unambiguously this is a tax which, if cut, will massively disproportionately benefit the very wealthy.
4) You say my argument is thin? You don't even mention the more important points I made . First one is that we have to take enough tax from somewhere to balance what we spend on society. If you want to cut IHT, you have to either cut spending or put up some other tax. Which would you do?
5) You've also ignored what is, to me, the absolute key issue. There is a pretty incontrovertible economic argument that societies in which wealth is encouraged to accumulate within wealthy families are also ones which have poor social mobility. In simple terms, if some kids are well funded by their parents while other ones aren't, the wealthy will tend to get on disproportionately to their actual ability or future work ethic. It's familial instinct to want OUR kids to succeed, but that's not necessarily the right outcome for the society as a whole. So society has a right (I'd say, a sensible duty) to redistribute wealth rather than let it accumulate in small groups. IHT is one of those means.
And I know those more on the right will automatically scream that society has no such right to limit what we, each of us want to do. But of course it does. I have an instinct to give my kids an advantage. But I also have an instinct to want to copulate with every attractive female I see. I don't think anyone would complain about society imposing limits on my right to take action on that.
6) Finally, you talk about multiple taxation. We are taxed multiple times on many things. I pay income tax and NIC on my salary. I've just filled the car up with petrol. I paid VAT and fuel duty on that expenditure. I paid insurance tax on my car insurance payments. All of those taxes, I paid from money that I've already been taxed on.
-
BST,
You're making a lot of political points and using the IHT argument to do so. But, as I've told you before I'm not interested in politics per se, I'm from the Billy Connolly school of voters, or not voters as is the case.
Your initial post was incorrect, and I pointed out at some length why it was incorrect in my particular case. I'm not in the top 4% that's pretty obvious and yet I get caught up in this when I don't see why I should. So,
1) Yes not 40% of the total, but still 40% over and above that is still a chunk of money that's taken many years to save.
2) I'm aware of that, but that's not my argument.
3) I'm not interested in the position of millionaires and multi millionaires, I'm interested in the normal working blokes like me! I haven't suggested that the tax cuts should affect everybody have I?
4) Its an important point for you!! But I have no position and I have nothing to offer when it comes to balancing the books.
5) Yes I have ignored this point, because I'm not interested in arguing broader economic issues. But if you do want to talk about social mobility then its obvious that I had a very shitty childhood! My kids have avoided that to a large extent and I'm immensely proud of that. But please don't try and make me feel guilty about it, that's the last thing I need!! If I had come from a family that was seen as more stable or economically privileged in any way then I could understand your argument, but I didn't. Creating a level playing field is utopia I'm sure, but taking money from the poorer amongst us is not the way!
6) I'm aware of multiple taxation obviously. What I'm talking about is the same pot of money being taxed twice. In your examples you acquired something in exchange for your cash and paid tax along the way, I don't have an issue with that. But if I pass my taxed income along to my kids it gets taxed a second time and then a 3rd time when they spend that cash. Hardly the explanation you were looking for.
-
All taxes are seen as unjust and unfair on those that have to pay them.
Only one thing is worse than suffering a personal perceived injustice and that's believing that your offspring are suffering an injustice.
That's why IHT garners such anger amongst many of those who believe that their estates will be hit by it.
And that's why Hunt and Sunak are making this tax cut. Electioneering. Not of the wider populace re the GE. But of the Tory membership ahead of the Tory leadership election to be held after their inevitable GE defeat.
The majority of Tory members are concerned (whether correctly or incorrectly) about IHT limiting their offspring's inheritance. Same as Silent Majority here.
If my parents died tomorrow their estate would be subject to IHT. Yet I'd still receive half (with my sister) of £1m before IHT would be applied.
I think I'd survive with little hardship on any loss through IHT I'd suffer.
Meanwhile there are those scraping by on the minimum/living wage who would benefit hugely in terms of living standards from a tax cut targeted at them.
A tax cut which incidentally would benefit the wider economy much more than an equivalent IHT cut. Given that the poorest spend a higher % of their incomes and so their additional income from said tax cut would generate more economic activity and therefore more economic growth.
-
Very good post Branton.
-
It could just as easily be argued that any inheritance your children get is income and should therefore be subject to Income Tax.
-
At this moment in time IHT needs to be left well alone, it does need reform and simplifying to a level where its targeted at the very rich, someone who's on 40% tax band and just happens to have made a few bob from house values should not be the target audience.
What i would like to see is the government review the tax thresholds, we have a massive middle now in this country who are making up the largest part of the tax intake. people on salaries of up to 100k are not rich and they mostly don't have the assistance of clever accountants to avoid and evade the tax system.
What they should look at is bringing back the lower levels of tax bands that we had previously (under Brown) if they increase the thresholds of all bands this would allow workers to keep more of their hard earned and stimulate the economy at the same time which in effect generates the gov more tax take through the vat system.
We need a system i this country that sees more people contribute, the massive and growing class of people who struggle to make ends meet on minimum wage and then have to be assisted by the gov in working benefits is a massive problem, Gov should not be subsidising business or corporations and they should be forced to pay their workers a proper living wage. people need to know we all have a duty to contribute to society regardless of their level of income, even a token gesture for the lowest paid should make people think.
As a country we need to stop this drag towards a large part of society never having had paid employment because they can make far more on benefits, work needs to always pay more and pay a fair wage with a fair taxation system.
Raise the tax thresholds, have more bands and force major corporations and bushiness to pay their workers a proper living wage, in return they can have a reduction in corporation tax to stimulate the flea bitten economy in this country. That would be a far better use of whatever cash he's concocted from nowhere.
-
The very rich in the uk are not stupid enough to get caught up in the nuances of UK IHT.
Companies like PWC, Deloitte, Ernst Young and KPMG have whole teams that deal with Estate and Asset management for the wealthy.
The very wealthy pay large sums of money to these teams to legally avoid paying very large sums on tax. Avoid NOT evade.
As an aside, the ONS stated in June 2023 that the average house price in the uk had risen to £306000. Not too far from the £325000 threshold.
Savills have also indicated that one in 40 houses are now worth over 1mil. Most being in the London area of course.
IHT will hit middle Englanders with estates between the threshold and less than a million, because most will blindly or naively stumble into the trap. Unless of course the family is struck by sudden unplanned tragedies. People are way too “honourable” around Estates and IHT IMO.
If you can, plan ahead. Get advice. Be prepared. Or just pay up if that’s your fancy.
I did a little check on rightmove. Within 5 miles of the Doncaster area there are currently over 1500 properties that exceed the £325000 threshold. Within 40 miles there are over 21,000. A cut in IHT would save a lot of families a lot of money across the country.
Branton. Might I suggest your parents get some advice from a good accountant. You and your sister could benefit. And if this causes you a moral issue, you could donate the extra benefit to a chosen charity. They can put their Estate into a trust, with you and your sister as trustees, thereby legally avoiding IHT when anything happens to them. Do your own research of course. Seek advice. Why pax IHT when you can legally avoid it?
-
NR, what does it cost to set up a trust to minimise IH?
-
NR.
1) If you leave your house to your kids, the threshold is effectively £500,000.
2) The overwhelming majority of IHT tax income (96% of the total) comes from estates worth over £1m.
3) The average IHT bill on an estate valued at 400k is about £15k. It's hardly highway robbery territory. At £500k it's about £45k. At £1m it's about £120k. At £4m, it's about £1m. Whichever way you look at it, the great majority of the estate is still passed on to the beneficiaries.
4) I agree that the very, very rich can afford to take steps to minimise their tax. Here's a thought. If the Govt really clamped down on them, they could very well afford to cut IHT at the lower end of the scale. Instead, what they are going to do this week is not go after the very rich. They are going to take money from people who've been invalided out of work and give it predominantly to relatively well off southerners.
-
NR, what does it cost to set up a trust to minimise IH?
Very little.
-
Thanks NR
That's good advice - for anyone reading this who might get caught out by IHT.
My parents are relatively recently retired and are planning to spend away any IHT issue - though who knows what will happen to house prices.
I've tried to persuade them to gift me a wedge of money, as assuming they survive at least 7 years such monies would be IHT exempt, but so far have had no joy :)
-
I would have thought that if you want better services such as a modern police force with modern computer systems, a modern health service, etc etc, then a strong economy with everyone that can afford to pay there share in taxes would be an obvious choice.
If you also want a better society where everyone/most feel that they belong then better services with a better standard of living is more likely to achieve that than the reverse.
-
Some people might also find the following of interest:
“Inheritance Tax usually doesn't apply when you pass on your pension pot. This is because, unlike other investments, your pension plan isn't normally part of your taxable estate.”
The beneficiary will simply pay any income tax due at the appropriate rate when they draw money from the fund.
-
Some people might also find the following of interest:
“Inheritance Tax usually doesn't apply when you pass on your pension pot. This is because, unlike other investments, your pension plan isn't normally part of your taxable estate.”
The beneficiary will simply pay any income tax due at the appropriate rate when they draw money from the fund.
Which is effectively the same thing, it just has a different label.
-
Some people might also find the following of interest:
“Inheritance Tax usually doesn't apply when you pass on your pension pot. This is because, unlike other investments, your pension plan isn't normally part of your taxable estate.”
The beneficiary will simply pay any income tax due at the appropriate rate when they draw money from the fund.
Which is effectively the same thing, it just has a different label.
Yes and no. At least in that case it's only getting taxed once, because it was tax free going into the pot in the first place.
-
Some people might also find the following of interest:
“Inheritance Tax usually doesn't apply when you pass on your pension pot. This is because, unlike other investments, your pension plan isn't normally part of your taxable estate.”
The beneficiary will simply pay any income tax due at the appropriate rate when they draw money from the fund.
Which is effectively the same thing, it just has a different label.
Yes and no. At least in that case it's only getting taxed once, because it was tax free going into the pot in the first place.
And only paid at the same 40% tax rate as IHT if your beneficiary is in the higher rate income tax band
-
Some people might also find the following of interest:
“Inheritance Tax usually doesn't apply when you pass on your pension pot. This is because, unlike other investments, your pension plan isn't normally part of your taxable estate.”
The beneficiary will simply pay any income tax due at the appropriate rate when they draw money from the fund.
Which is effectively the same thing, it just has a different label.
Not necessarily.
Say someone has a £300,000 private pension pot, a house valued at £500,000 and other assets worth another £500,000 the inheritance tax wouldn’t apply to the money in the pension fund. It would only be applicable to that which goes over the limit on the house and other assets.
The beneficiary of the pension fund might only end up paying 20% income tax from anything drawn down if he wasn’t in a higher bracket tax bracket and didn’t go into it by drawing out too much each tax year.
-
Some people might also find the following of interest:
“Inheritance Tax usually doesn't apply when you pass on your pension pot. This is because, unlike other investments, your pension plan isn't normally part of your taxable estate.”
The beneficiary will simply pay any income tax due at the appropriate rate when they draw money from the fund.
Which is effectively the same thing, it just has a different label.
Not necessarily.
Say someone has a £300,000 private pension pot, a house valued at £500,000 and other assets worth another £500,000 the inheritance tax wouldn’t apply to the money in the pension fund. It would only be applicable to that which goes over the limit on the house and other assets.
The beneficiary of the pension fund might only end up paying 20% income tax from anything drawn down if he wasn’t in a higher bracket tax bracket and didn’t go into it by drawing out too much each tax year.
Yep. Savvy accountants that assist families in this situation call it re distribution of wealth.
You can put cash, investments and property into a trust, all of which would avoid IHT if left in a will to beneficiaries.
-
NR, what does it cost to set up a trust to minimise IH?
The cost of creating a simple trust is usually in the region of £1000 - £1,500. The exact amount depends on how much legal advice you need and how long it takes your solicitor to draft the precise wording.
Trusts come in many shapes and sizes and they are a flexible way to structure your financial affairs. The law behind them can be complicated, so you must use a solicitor to make sure it is set up correctly based on your personal circumstances.
If you come to them prepared with an understanding of the key information you need to set up your trust, this can significantly reduce the cost of the initial legal advice. This information includes:
What the purpose of the trust is?
A list of assets to go into the trust
Who controls the trust (the ‘trustee’)
Who benefits from the trust (the ‘beneficiary’)
And any other specific rules you would like to include (like an age requirement before funds are released).
If you have a complex collection of assets and business interests and any foreign assets requiring tax planning, the cost can be as high as £5,000 - £10,000.
What Are Trusts Typically Used For?
The property inside a trust is treated separately from property owned by individuals for tax purposes, and that can be very useful especially when it comes to Inheritance Tax.
They are commonly used to protect and control family assets, to ensure finances are secure when someone is too young to handle their own affairs, to set up long-term care for someone less able to take care of themselves, for their own future care home fees, and for the more obvious purpose of passing on assets either during someone’s lifetime or upon their death.
Originally introduced during the reign of Henry VIII in the 16th century, trusts were invented to solve a gap in the justice system around Wills and how property should be transferred. Trusts are a useful mechanism for passing on property in a Will whilst still retaining some control over what happens to it.
Today, trusts are not just used in Wills and people are realising they are not reserved for the very wealthy either. There are only about 200,000 trusts in the UK at the moment but 1/5th of those were set up in the financial year between March 2021-2022.
-
Some people might also find the following of interest:
“Inheritance Tax usually doesn't apply when you pass on your pension pot. This is because, unlike other investments, your pension plan isn't normally part of your taxable estate.”
The beneficiary will simply pay any income tax due at the appropriate rate when they draw money from the fund.
Which is effectively the same thing, it just has a different label.
Not necessarily.
Say someone has a £300,000 private pension pot, a house valued at £500,000 and other assets worth another £500,000 the inheritance tax wouldn’t apply to the money in the pension fund. It would only be applicable to that which goes over the limit on the house and other assets.
The beneficiary of the pension fund might only end up paying 20% income tax from anything drawn down if he wasn’t in a higher bracket tax bracket and didn’t go into it by drawing out too much each tax year.
Yep. Savvy accountants that assist families in this situation call it re distribution of wealth.
You can put cash, investments and property into a trust, all of which would avoid IHT if left in a will to beneficiaries.
That's something you're quite likely to do at 65,70 etc but not at 30 or 40. Some good posts in this thread about the unfairness of it.
Perhaps there are some more innovative solutions to it. Example they could cut the tax free pension allowance for those with high inheritance or something like that? Yes it's still a tax but then it only kicks in for those earning good money and when they earn it. It also answers the unfairness of those who don't have good money. As it stands someone unable to work would pay the same iht as someone on £10m a year. There are better ways to structure it.
-
NR.
1) If you leave your house to your kids, the threshold is effectively £500,000.
2) The overwhelming majority of IHT tax income (96% of the total) comes from estates worth over £1m.
3) The average IHT bill on an estate valued at 400k is about £15k. It's hardly highway robbery territory. At £500k it's about £45k. At £1m it's about £120k. At £4m, it's about £1m. Whichever way you look at it, the great majority of the estate is still passed on to the beneficiaries.
4) I agree that the very, very rich can afford to take steps to minimise their tax. Here's a thought. If the Govt really clamped down on them, they could very well afford to cut IHT at the lower end of the scale. Instead, what they are going to do this week is not go after the very rich. They are going to take money from people who've been invalided out of work and give it predominantly to relatively well off southerners.
If my estate was worth 400k I’d be pissed and turning in my grave if my kids had to fork out 15k having paid tax all my life. And it’s easily avoided.
And my comment about the very rich avoiding tax was misleading. It’s just that it seems to be only those with lots of money that seem to employ tactics to avoid iht. Why should hard working families allow themselves to be shafted by the taxman when, with a little forethought and planning, they can assure that their estate is left untouched by HMRC. Spending a couple of grand getting a trust set up to avoid a five figure tax bill on your family seems like a no brainier to me.
-
NR, what does it cost to set up a trust to minimise IH?
The cost of creating a simple trust is usually in the region of £1000 - £1,500. The exact amount depends on how much legal advice you need and how long it takes your solicitor to draft the precise wording.
Trusts come in many shapes and sizes and they are a flexible way to structure your financial affairs. The law behind them can be complicated, so you must use a solicitor to make sure it is set up correctly based on your personal circumstances.
If you come to them prepared with an understanding of the key information you need to set up your trust, this can significantly reduce the cost of the initial legal advice. This information includes:
What the purpose of the trust is?
A list of assets to go into the trust
Who controls the trust (the ‘trustee’)
Who benefits from the trust (the ‘beneficiary’)
And any other specific rules you would like to include (like an age requirement before funds are released).
If you have a complex collection of assets and business interests and any foreign assets requiring tax planning, the cost can be as high as £5,000 - £10,000.
What Are Trusts Typically Used For?
The property inside a trust is treated separately from property owned by individuals for tax purposes, and that can be very useful especially when it comes to Inheritance Tax.
They are commonly used to protect and control family assets, to ensure finances are secure when someone is too young to handle their own affairs, to set up long-term care for someone less able to take care of themselves, for their own future care home fees, and for the more obvious purpose of passing on assets either during someone’s lifetime or upon their death.
Originally introduced during the reign of Henry VIII in the 16th century, trusts were invented to solve a gap in the justice system around Wills and how property should be transferred. Trusts are a useful mechanism for passing on property in a Will whilst still retaining some control over what happens to it.
Today, trusts are not just used in Wills and people are realising they are not reserved for the very wealthy either. There are only about 200,000 trusts in the UK at the moment but 1/5th of those were set up in the financial year between March 2021-2022.
thanks nr
-
Some people might also find the following of interest:
“Inheritance Tax usually doesn't apply when you pass on your pension pot. This is because, unlike other investments, your pension plan isn't normally part of your taxable estate.”
The beneficiary will simply pay any income tax due at the appropriate rate when they draw money from the fund.
Which is effectively the same thing, it just has a different label.
Not necessarily.
Say someone has a £300,000 private pension pot, a house valued at £500,000 and other assets worth another £500,000 the inheritance tax wouldn’t apply to the money in the pension fund. It would only be applicable to that which goes over the limit on the house and other assets.
The beneficiary of the pension fund might only end up paying 20% income tax from anything drawn down if he wasn’t in a higher bracket tax bracket and didn’t go into it by drawing out too much each tax year.
Yep. Savvy accountants that assist families in this situation call it re distribution of wealth.
You can put cash, investments and property into a trust, all of which would avoid IHT if left in a will to beneficiaries.
That's something you're quite likely to do at 65,70 etc but not at 30 or 40. Some good posts in this thread about the unfairness of it.
Perhaps there are some more innovative solutions to it. Example they could cut the tax free pension allowance for those with high inheritance or something like that? Yes it's still a tax but then it only kicks in for those earning good money and when they earn it. It also answers the unfairness of those who don't have good money. As it stands someone unable to work would pay the same iht as someone on £10m a year. There are better ways to structure it.
In Oz, IT is political poison for any party, discussion of it pre-election is immediately jumped on by the rw media. And so there is none. It is not helped by using descriptors such as 'caught' and 'trap' etc.
-
As further food for thought, the UK govt got £7bn from IHT in the financial yr 22/23. That was an increase of £1bn from the £6bn they receipted in FY 21/22.
Its hard to comprehend that most of this is avoidable.
I suppose there are trains of thought out there that when people die they just dont care. Notwithstanding those that pass away unexpectedly. Then there are family fueds to consider. People with no family etc.
Even so, thats a huge sum of money.
Its a wonder there arent huge adverts on the TV for big accountancy companies to attract customers into this field.
Maybe its a culture thing. We pay taxes all our lives and we just take it on the chin that any inheritance we leave behind gets taxed also.
-
It seems as it stands, that paying inheritance tax is optional, and you can opt for ways of avoiding paying it. That seems fair enough. If you don't agree with avoiding paying it, you can choose to pay it and rest peacefully in heaven while your family actually do the forking out for your generosity.
In a different scenario, if IHT is abolished you can donate the equivalent to a charity or something.
-
There's some very interesting viewpoints on a tax which seems to be, at the very least misunderstood, and at the worst being used as a political club to beat people with.
It seems that the headlines that read like 'the Tories looking after themselves' are just a nonsense, and for somebody like me who votes for no political party it certainly doesn't apply. And initially that's why I responded, because this very subject needs looking at and shouldn't be used as a political football. There's a reason that most countries are abandoning IHT, because its basically unfair, and the longer the thresholds are held at these levels then more and more people will fall into that tax trap.
I am of course fully aware of the steps I can take to avoid leaving my kids, and grand-kids, with a massive bill, but one of the points I've made is why should we do that? What's the point of having a tax that can be so easily avoided? The only purpose it seems to be serving is to line the pockets of the accountancy firms that provide that service.
-
It seems as it stands, that paying inheritance tax is optional, and you can opt for ways of avoiding paying it. That seems fair enough. If you don't agree with avoiding paying it, you can choose to pay it and rest peacefully in heaven while your family actually do the forking out for your generosity.
In a different scenario, if IHT is abolished you can donate the equivalent to a charity or something.
Charity - we don't need taxes at all really. Scrap them all, people will give to charity.
JR-M for PM! :woot:
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
-
It seems as it stands, that paying inheritance tax is optional, and you can opt for ways of avoiding paying it. That seems fair enough. If you don't agree with avoiding paying it, you can choose to pay it and rest peacefully in heaven while your family actually do the forking out for your generosity.
In a different scenario, if IHT is abolished you can donate the equivalent to a charity or something.
Charity - we don't need taxes at all really. Scrap them all, people will give to charity.
JR-M for PM! :woot:
Is that an answer or just a silly outburst?
-
There's some very interesting viewpoints on a tax which seems to be, at the very least misunderstood, and at the worst being used as a political club to beat people with.
It seems that the headlines that read like 'the Tories looking after themselves' are just a nonsense, and for somebody like me who votes for no political party it certainly doesn't apply. And initially that's why I responded, because this very subject needs looking at and shouldn't be used as a political football. There's a reason that most countries are abandoning IHT, because its basically unfair, and the longer the thresholds are held at these levels then more and more people will fall into that tax trap.
I am of course fully aware of the steps I can take to avoid leaving my kids, and grand-kids, with a massive bill, but one of the points I've made is why should we do that? What's the point of having a tax that can be so easily avoided? The only purpose it seems to be serving is to line the pockets of the accountancy firms that provide that service.
I've contributed to this thread and in no way shape or form am i interested in the political side of any argument put forward. IHT has been around far longer than i have. And i suspect it will continue to exist for many years after my time. Im just interested in saving people money. Alot of money in most cases. If you can avoid paying something legally, then why not?
Families work too hard, for too long, paying their fair whack on taxes throughout their lifetime.
As an aside, and possibly linked, i believe there exists levels of financial ignorance in the UK. Especially in relation to tax. I was chatting in my workplace the other day about interest on savings and how your income can affect this. Incredibly, no-one in the office even knew about it. And some (who earn over 50K and therefore can only earn £500 per year in interest before tax) were unwittingly paying tax on interest because they have all their cash squirrelled away in normal savings accounts. And they had no idea of tax thresholds for earnings related to interest.
-
I am in favour of Inheritance Tax in some shape or form for the reasons expressed by BST earlier in the thread. However I don't think the current version is particularly good.
Danum Don was talking about changing income tax threshholds. At least there are various bands. In IHT the rate goes directly from 0% to 40%. I would be in favour of an intermediate band of say 20% IHT on estates from say 0.5M to 2M, and then the 40% kicks in. This would reflect that fact that house prices have risen so much pulling others than the mega-rich into IHT range.
But I also agree with BST that any IHT tax cut right now is not a good idea as it would entail a more deserving area likely being cut.
Edit: Changed to 0.5M. Don't know if everyone knows but 500K allowance is per person in a marriage, and it is possible to write into your will that if one parent passes away, that the 500K allowance can be passed to the surviving parent for a 1M allowance on IHT. That is certainly the case in Northern Ireland, so I guess for the rest of the UK as well (some laws are indeed different over here).
-
SM
The point is, you cannot just look at this in isolation.
Nobody actually wants to pay tax.
I'd be delighted if we paid zero tax and had world leading health and education systems freely available to everyone, the best railways in the world, social housing for everyone who needed it and a strong defence.
But you need tax to pay for those things.
So the question is, where does that tax come from.
My approach is simple.
1) Given the current state of our public services, I don't think cutting tax is a priority.
2) I accept that some people will have a different take on that. What I don't understand is why they would support cutting a tax that is overwhelming paid by the very wealthy. There are many, many more equitable ways to cut tax, and ways that are better for our economic performance over the long term.
I really don't understand why those points seem to generate so much bile. They are eminently sensible to me.
-
SM
The point is, you cannot just look at this in isolation.
Nobody actually wants to pay tax.
I'd be delighted if we paid zero tax and had world leading health and education systems freely available to everyone, the best railways in the world, social housing for everyone who needed it and a strong defence.
But you need tax to pay for those things.
So the question is, where does that tax come from.
My approach is simple.
1) Given the current state of our public services, I don't think cutting tax is a priority.
2) I accept that some people will have a different take on that. What I don't understand is why they would support cutting a tax that is overwhelming paid by the very wealthy. There are many, many more equitable ways to cut tax, and ways that are better for our economic performance over the long term.
I really don't understand why those points seem to generate so much bile. They are eminently sensible to me.
I suppose it depends on what level you consider to be very wealthy.
Without giving too much away, I have taken steps to make sure that IHT isn’t a problem for my family when I have left the mortal coil, but I don’t consider myself to be “very wealthy”.
What level of wealth would you consider to fall into the category that you think should pay IHT.
As has been said on this thread, what you might call ordinary working people have fallen into the groups who now have this IHT as a potential to be paid.
-
It seems likely that due to the furore around this, they'll shelve the IHT idea.
For me I'd raise income tax by a penny and invest in things that really matter.
Not a snowballs chance in hell of this happening though.
-
SM
1) You wouldn't be handing over 40% of your estate to the country's coffers, as you well know. You'd be charged 40% on any estate value over £500k, assuming your house is passed onto your kids.
2) As I'm sure you also know, even that amount can be minimised by giving gifts to your kids in advance of your death.
3) Yes, I'm sure the richest have ways of minimising IHT, but I've quoted (and you've dismissed) official Govt figures, that the average IHT bill for an estate under £1m is 2% and the figure for estates greater than £1m is 17-20%. So clearly and unambiguously this is a tax which, if cut, will massively disproportionately benefit the very wealthy.
4) You say my argument is thin? You don't even mention the more important points I made . First one is that we have to take enough tax from somewhere to balance what we spend on society. If you want to cut IHT, you have to either cut spending or put up some other tax. Which would you do?
5) You've also ignored what is, to me, the absolute key issue. There is a pretty incontrovertible economic argument that societies in which wealth is encouraged to accumulate within wealthy families are also ones which have poor social mobility. In simple terms, if some kids are well funded by their parents while other ones aren't, the wealthy will tend to get on disproportionately to their actual ability or future work ethic. It's familial instinct to want OUR kids to succeed, but that's not necessarily the right outcome for the society as a whole. So society has a right (I'd say, a sensible duty) to redistribute wealth rather than let it accumulate in small groups. IHT is one of those means.
And I know those more on the right will automatically scream that society has no such right to limit what we, each of us want to do. But of course it does. I have an instinct to give my kids an advantage. But I also have an instinct to want to copulate with every attractive female I see. I don't think anyone would complain about society imposing limits on my right to take action on that.
6) Finally, you talk about multiple taxation. We are taxed multiple times on many things. I pay income tax and NIC on my salary. I've just filled the car up with petrol. I paid VAT and fuel duty on that expenditure. I paid insurance tax on my car insurance payments. All of those taxes, I paid from money that I've already been taxed on.
People being charged IHT have also paid tax on their income, as well as their spending, and are now unfairly having their hard-earned wealth taxed a third time upon death.
-
It seems likely that due to the furore around this, they'll shelve the IHT idea.
For me I'd raise income tax by a penny and invest in things that really matter.
Not a snowballs chance in hell of this happening though.
Tommy, on the lunchtime news they were suggesting that the idea might be dropped, for now anyway.
-
It seems likely that due to the furore around this, they'll shelve the IHT idea.
For me I'd raise income tax by a penny and invest in things that really matter.
Not a snowballs chance in hell of this happening though.
i suspect wed will see a reduction in income tax. prob 19% for lower rate tax bracket.
Tommy, on the lunchtime news they were suggesting that the idea might be dropped, for now anyway.
-
It seems as it stands, that paying inheritance tax is optional, and you can opt for ways of avoiding paying it. That seems fair enough. If you don't agree with avoiding paying it, you can choose to pay it and rest peacefully in heaven while your family actually do the forking out for your generosity.
In a different scenario, if IHT is abolished you can donate the equivalent to a charity or something.
Charity - we don't need taxes at all really. Scrap them all, people will give to charity.
JR-M for PM! :woot:
Is that an answer or just a silly outburst?
" if IHT is abolished you can donate the equivalent to a charity or something"
My point is charity is not a solution. You know that. So why mention it? It is very much the kind of thing JR-M would champion along with the rest of his Victoriana.
-
Last time I checked, charities didn't pay for railways or the armed services.
-
It seems as it stands, that paying inheritance tax is optional, and you can opt for ways of avoiding paying it. That seems fair enough. If you don't agree with avoiding paying it, you can choose to pay it and rest peacefully in heaven while your family actually do the forking out for your generosity.
In a different scenario, if IHT is abolished you can donate the equivalent to a charity or something.
Charity - we don't need taxes at all really. Scrap them all, people will give to charity.
JR-M for PM! :woot:
Is that an answer or just a silly outburst?
" if IHT is abolished you can donate the equivalent to a charity or something"
My point is charity is not a solution. You know that. So why mention it? It is very much the kind of thing JR-M would champion along with the rest of his Victoriana.
It seems as it stands, that paying inheritance tax is optional, and you can opt for ways of avoiding paying it. That seems fair enough. If you don't agree with avoiding paying it, you can choose to pay it and rest peacefully in heaven while your family actually do the forking out for your generosity.
In a different scenario, if IHT is abolished you can donate the equivalent to a charity or something.
Charity - we don't need taxes at all really. Scrap them all, people will give to charity.
JR-M for PM! :woot:
Is that an answer or just a silly outburst?
" if IHT is abolished you can donate the equivalent to a charity or something"
My point is charity is not a solution. You know that. So why mention it? It is very much the kind of thing JR-M would champion along with the rest of his Victoriana.
Charity is not a solution to what?
-
Last time I checked, charities didn't pay for railways or the armed services.
Who the f**k suggested they did? Are you being deliberately stupid or just on the wind-up?
-
People being charged IHT have also paid tax on their income, as well as their spending, and are now unfairly having their hard-earned wealth taxed a third time upon death.
Tax helps adjust the inherant imbalance in a "free" economy, IHT is one important check/balance in this. It enables lots of good things including raising the prosperity of a state - it benefits everyone. The "loss" from IHT is fairly minimal for inheritees who have anyway likely benefitted from relative prosperity that fell into their laps. It's win win for them.
As I said earlier, the problem with IHT are the loopholes some of which have been outlined above, and the offshore scams. They should be closed.
-
Last time I checked, charities didn't pay for railways or the armed services.
Who the f**k suggested they did? Are you being deliberately stupid or just on the wind-up?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6b/85/34/6b85347c9d6c473ec32899fe8fc3704b.jpg)
-
Charity is not a solution to what?
It's not a solution to redressing the inherant imbalances in a "free" economy. That is part of what tax is about. Charity can come on top of that, the cream on the cake if you like. You were suggesting taking away a progressive tax to be replaced by donations that would inevitably mean less would go to basic needy causes. That creates an impoverished society. Is that what you want? JR-M does.
-
Last time I checked, charities didn't pay for railways or the armed services.
Who the f**k suggested they did? Are you being deliberately stupid or just on the wind-up?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6b/85/34/6b85347c9d6c473ec32899fe8fc3704b.jpg)
Oh, I see, stupid. Thanks for answering a question for once, anyway.
-
Charity is not a solution to what?
It's not a solution to redressing the inherant imbalances in a "free" economy. That is part of what tax is about. Charity can come on top of that, the cream on the cake if you like. You were suggesting taking away a progressive tax to be replaced by donations that would inevitably mean less would go to basic needy causes. That creates an impoverished society. Is that what you want? JR-M does.
I never said it was a solution. I said it was an option for those who would feel so guilty about keeping hold of their money if IHT was abolished.
-
The fact that you make this into a question of "feeling guilty" is very illuminating.
You haven't actually got a clue, have you?
-
What you mean owd lad is you haven't got a clue how to answer a question directly so you have to criticise how it is asked.
Maybe you can ask what 'owd lad' means next.
-
People being charged IHT have also paid tax on their income, as well as their spending, and are now unfairly having their hard-earned wealth taxed a third time upon death.
Tax helps adjust the inherant imbalance in a "free" economy, IHT is one important check/balance in this. It enables lots of good things including raising the prosperity of a state - it benefits everyone. The "loss" from IHT is fairly minimal for inheritees who have anyway likely benefitted from relative prosperity that fell into their laps. It's win win for them.
As I said earlier, the problem with IHT are the loopholes some of which have been outlined above, and the offshore scams. They should be closed.
Why is it that every post on this subject you make comes across as deeply envious and scrounging, in effect to be given something for nothing (as you keep referring to beneficiaries of IHT)
I'm imagining that most on here are not of the mega-loaded disposition that you keep referring to but people who through their own hard work and endeavours have managed to make something of themselves and been rewarded for it. These are the people who this discussion is based around, not some gin swilling oik who has inherited a pile from the landed family. Nobody has any dispute in this demographic being forced to pay their dues.
When you are in effect trying to cream off even more of a tax take of people who have worked, paid tax and in he process more than paid their dues to the rest of society, this type of talk will not sit well with the silent majority in this country.
Like i said earlier everyone in this society is a stakeholder and needs to understand that this should not be a something for nothing culture, everyone should contribute even if its a tiny fraction, people need to understand this.
Nearly 50% of the Uk workforce pay no income tax yet are entitled to have a say on how the other 50% are taxed and more importantly on how that tax is distributed.
What did they say about "no taxation without representation"
Maybe a policy of "no representation without taxation would result in a more prosperous and representative country?
-
DD
Nobody in this country pays no tax.
-
DD
Nobody in this country pays no tax.
Who mentioned anything about "no tax", i clearly mentioned income tax, a tax that a large proportion pay none of.
-
And I'll say again. If you eliminate IHT, you've either got to find £7bn of spending cuts.
That's 9% of the Education budget. 22% of the Defence Budget.
Or you have to increase other taxes. Like adding 1% onto VAT, which would mean a lot of very unwealthy people paying more tax to subsidise a few relatively wealthy people.
So what do you want to do?
-
DD
Nobody in this country pays no tax.
The Trotters pay no income tax or VAT, so that's two for a start.
-
DD
Nobody in this country pays no tax.
Who mentioned anything about "no tax", i clearly mentioned income tax, a tax that a large proportion pay none of.
DD.
You suggested " no representation without taxation".
I said no-one in this country pays no tax.
-
Subtle difference between income tax and indirect taxes,
One is demanded by order of the state, the other is a personal preference that you can ultimately decide upon.
-
You want to go off and try to "ultimately decide on" living your life in a way that incurs zero indirect tax?
Good luck.
-
You want to go off and try to "ultimately decide on" living your life in a way that incurs zero indirect tax?
Good luck.
You know exactly what im saying, with income tax most don't have any other choice than to pay their due. With indirect taxes you cut your cloth accordingly.
Why would anyone mention trying to " live your life in a way that incurs zero indirect tax" !
-
If you are in a certain financial position , you can contribute a substantial amount of your salary into your pension with substantial tax relief. You can in fact contribute 100% of your current salary into a pension pot, with certain tax caveats. Thereby paying no income tax on that salary at all.
-
If you are in a certain financial position , you can contribute a substantial amount of your salary into your pension with substantial tax relief. You can in fact contribute 100% of your current salary into a pension pot, with certain tax caveats. Thereby paying no income tax on that salary at all.
That's right but they only pay tax relief up to a 60k maximum. anything over that is better invested in an ISA.
-
If you are in a certain financial position , you can contribute a substantial amount of your salary into your pension with substantial tax relief. You can in fact contribute 100% of your current salary into a pension pot, with certain tax caveats. Thereby paying no income tax on that salary at all.
That's right but they only pay tax relief up to a 60k maximum. anything over that is better invested in an ISA.
Trouble is with ISA’s is their 20k limit per person per financial year. Something I do think should be re visited by the govt.
-
DD
The point is, EVERYONE pays tax. The poorer you are, the lower you pay in income tax as a percentage of your income and the more you pay in indirect tax.
There's a certain level of indirect tax that you just cannot avoid unless you cut your cloth so thinly that there's nothing left.
Everyone has to buy clothes.
Everyone has to spend something on heating - nearly everyone on keeping a car on the road and insuring themselves and their property.
You suggested there should be no representation without taxation, and you did so in a post that concentrated entirely on direct taxation.
Concentrating on direct taxation is misleading. But it's a theme that regularly gets pushed by right wing commentators. I wonder why ...
-
If you are in a certain financial position , you can contribute a substantial amount of your salary into your pension with substantial tax relief. You can in fact contribute 100% of your current salary into a pension pot, with certain tax caveats. Thereby paying no income tax on that salary at all.
That's right but they only pay tax relief up to a 60k maximum. anything over that is better invested in an ISA.
Trouble is with ISA’s is their 20k limit per person per financial year. Something I do think should be re visited by the govt.
There is talk of increasing the threshold of certain ISA's that will be invested in "UK sourced investments" sounds like a sure fire way to loose a bundle if the current UK stock market returns are anything to go by.
-
DD.
YOU were the one who mooted the idea of people not being allowed to vote if they didn't pay tax.
I just pointed out that everyone pays tax.
So, frankly, I haven't got a clue what that little explosion was about.
You? Saying that? Then calling someone else a fascist?
I think you need to stop and have a bit of a think.
-
Yep, fair enough.
-
If you are in a certain financial position , you can contribute a substantial amount of your salary into your pension with substantial tax relief. You can in fact contribute 100% of your current salary into a pension pot, with certain tax caveats. Thereby paying no income tax on that salary at all.
That's right but they only pay tax relief up to a 60k maximum. anything over that is better invested in an ISA.
Trouble is with ISA’s is their 20k limit per person per financial year. Something I do think should be re visited by the govt.
There is talk of increasing the threshold of certain ISA's that will be invested in "UK sourced investments" sounds like a sure fire way to loose a bundle if the current UK stock market returns are anything to go by.
I don’t know about that.
I invested heavily in Rolls Royce shares a just over year ago predicting a post covid bounce back and increased demand for engines. They are up 189% as of today.
-
"China, India and Russia all have no inheritance taxes. Several developed countries, including Australia, Israel and New Zealand, have chosen to abolish inheritance taxes in order to create simpler tax systems and encourage the creation of wealth, whether through investment or entrepreneurship."
-
"China, India and Russia all have no inheritance taxes. Several developed countries, including Australia, Israel and New Zealand, have chosen to abolish inheritance taxes in order to create simpler tax systems and encourage the creation of wealth, whether through investment or entrepreneurship."
Not true
-
If you are in a certain financial position , you can contribute a substantial amount of your salary into your pension with substantial tax relief. You can in fact contribute 100% of your current salary into a pension pot, with certain tax caveats. Thereby paying no income tax on that salary at all.
That's right but they only pay tax relief up to a 60k maximum. anything over that is better invested in an ISA.
Trouble is with ISA’s is their 20k limit per person per financial year. Something I do think should be re visited by the govt.
There is talk of increasing the threshold of certain ISA's that will be invested in "UK sourced investments" sounds like a sure fire way to loose a bundle if the current UK stock market returns are anything to go by.
I don’t know about that.
I invested heavily in Rolls Royce shares a just over year ago predicting a post covid bounce back and increased demand for engines. They are up 189% as of today.
I did the same, 205% up for me, wish I'd bought more, they were clearly undervalued. There's still a lot of value in the UK but also probably a bit higher risk.
The biggest issue with ISA's is the one type per year, that needs to change. There's no basis to that in the electronic world. Although flexible ISA's have been good that allow you to withdraw and resupply the account without using up your allowance. In the high interest rate world, the tax free allowances are really very low.
-
"China, India and Russia all have no inheritance taxes. Several developed countries, including Australia, Israel and New Zealand, have chosen to abolish inheritance taxes in order to create simpler tax systems and encourage the creation of wealth, whether through investment or entrepreneurship."
Not true
What's not true?
-
"China, India and Russia all have no inheritance taxes. Several developed countries, including Australia, Israel and New Zealand, have chosen to abolish inheritance taxes in order to create simpler tax systems and encourage the creation of wealth, whether through investment or entrepreneurship."
Not true
What's not true?
what you wrote
-
And you haven't supplied a list of people that are leaving the UK due to IT either.
-
It's what I copied and pasted, hence the inverted commas.
What is not true about what I copied and pasted?
-
It's what I copied and pasted, hence the inverted commas.
What is not true about what I copied and pasted?
It's up to you to ensure the integrity of what you comment about, do your homework.
-
You effectively called me a liar. now I want YOU to put up or shut up.
https://www.google.com/search?q=China%2C+India+and+Russia+all+have+no+inheritance+taxes.+Several+developed+countries%2C+including+Australia%2C+Israel+and+New+Zealand%2C+have+chosen+to+abolish+inheritance+taxes+in+order+to+create+simpler+tax+systems+and+encourage+the+creation+of+wealth%2C+whether+through+investment+or+entrepreneurship.%22&rlz=1C1YTUH_en-GBGB1045GB1045&oq=China%2C+India+and+Russia+all+have+no+inheritance+taxes.+Several+developed+countries%2C+including+Australia%2C+Israel+and+New+Zealand%2C+have+chosen+to+abolish+inheritance+taxes+in+order+to+create+simpler+tax+systems+and+encourage+the+creation+of+wealth%2C+whether+through+investment+or+entrepreneurship.%22&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDExNjBqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
-
You effectively called me a liar. now I want YOU to put up or shut up.
https://www.google.com/search?q=China%2C+India+and+Russia+all+have+no+inheritance+taxes.+Several+developed+countries%2C+including+Australia%2C+Israel+and+New+Zealand%2C+have+chosen+to+abolish+inheritance+taxes+in+order+to+create+simpler+tax+systems+and+encourage+the+creation+of+wealth%2C+whether+through+investment+or+entrepreneurship.%22&rlz=1C1YTUH_en-GBGB1045GB1045&oq=China%2C+India+and+Russia+all+have+no+inheritance+taxes.+Several+developed+countries%2C+including+Australia%2C+Israel+and+New+Zealand%2C+have+chosen+to+abolish+inheritance+taxes+in+order+to+create+simpler+tax+systems+and+encourage+the+creation+of+wealth%2C+whether+through+investment+or+entrepreneurship.%22&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDExNjBqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
I haven't called you a liar bb, I have contested your comment, what you need to do is look at your comment and go through it and determine what is correct and what is not.
-
You said what I copied wasn't true. YOU are the one contesting it, so I want YOU to tell me the untruths in the article.
-
You said what I copied wasn't true. YOU are the one contesting it, so I want YOU to tell me the untruths in the article.
I just said that in my comment above, it's up to you to work out what is not true and if I'm incorrect you can call me out.
-
No. You said it is untrue. you have therefore declared you have reason to believe it is untrue.
Now, give me those reasons.
-
No. You said it is untrue. you have therefore declared you have reason to believe it is untrue.
Now, give me those reasons.
No
-
No. You said it is untrue. you have therefore declared you have reason to believe it is untrue.
Now, give me those reasons.
No
:facepalm: Childlike.
-
No. You said it is untrue. you have therefore declared you have reason to believe it is untrue.
Now, give me those reasons.
There are no inheritance or estate taxes in Australia. However, you may have tax obligations for the assets you inherit: capital gains tax may apply if you dispose of an asset inherited from a deceased estate. income tax applies as usual to any dividends or rental income from shares or property you inherited.
It’s a matter of opinion regarding subsequent inheritances being taxed under CGT or income tax as being a “stealth IHT”.
There is no IHT per se in OZ though.
-
No. You said it is untrue. you have therefore declared you have reason to believe it is untrue.
Now, give me those reasons.
There are no inheritance or estate taxes in Australia. However, you may have tax obligations for the assets you inherit: capital gains tax may apply if you dispose of an asset inherited from a deceased estate. income tax applies as usual to any dividends or rental income from shares or property you inherited.
It’s a matter of opinion regarding subsequent inheritances being taxed under CGT or income tax as being a “stealth IHT”.
There is no IHT per se in OZ though.
CGT and Income tax against those assets received may still also apply in the UK on top of IHT.
-
A good socialist is a good socialist until they have spent someone else's money.
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.
Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!
-
A good socialist is a good socialist until they have spent someone else's money.
Whose money are the current government spending?
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.
Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!
It's not too late to spend, or give it away, whatever gives you feel good.
Luck and fortune plays a part in all our lives. For sure it's poss to lead a less risky life, but still. Abuse, robbery, murder, ill health, your industry not being savaged by innovation, changes etc, are all in the lap of the gods. No one is saying you didn't work hard, be astute. But that's no guarantee of material wealth. You have been lucky, many haven't. More to the point, your kids have been lucky having you providing. How much will the relative quality of their lives be affected by having say an extra £100k which is effectively taken from the communities around them?
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.
Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!
This is exactly to the point.
Far too many people these days are not prepared to plan and save for the future, for themselves and their families.
We have become a something for nothing society with governments of all hues now feeling pressurised to tax the last penny out of people who have been prudent and sensible with their finances. Instead the benefit society has grown to a level where some now know nothing but receiving handouts to supplement poor wages instead of attempting to improve their lot by striving to improve themselves, get a better paid job or educate themselves to enable the opportunity for future advancement.
This is what now cripples governments into going down a road where they are firefighting a loosing society instead of creating the conditions to better enable people to advance themselves.
This can be done but it seems the desire and willingness to work hard has now become an old fashioned occupation, why work when the state will bung you the same for nothing? seems we have quite a vocal few who are happy with this situation and are quite happy for government to legislate in this direction who in their blind ignorance rob the working man who has been careful instead of the top 1% who need reform.
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.
Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!
It's not too late to spend, or give it away, whatever gives you feel good.
Luck and fortune plays a part in all our lives. For sure it's poss to lead a less risky life, but still. Abuse, robbery, murder, ill health, your industry not being savaged by innovation, changes etc, are all in the lap of the gods. No one is saying you didn't work hard, be astute. But that's no guarantee of material wealth. You have been lucky, many haven't. More to the point, your kids have been lucky having you providing. How much will the relative quality of their lives be affected by having say an extra £100k which is effectively taken from the communities around them?
The politics of envy, not happy for people who have made good life choices but quick to fleece them because they have been "lucky"
Tragic.
-
Bill: I'm gonna get pissed tonight and blow all my money on drink.
Ben: I'm gonna drink a bit less and save enough for a kebab on the way home.
Bill: That's fine by me, mate, we can share the f**ker!
-
Bill: I'm gonna get pissed tonight and blow all my money on drink.
Ben: I'm gonna drink a bit less and save enough for a kebab on the way home.
Bill: That's fine by me, mate, we can share the f**ker!
Goodness is it THAT time already?
-
Bill: I'm gonna get pissed tonight and blow all my money on drink.
Ben: I'm gonna drink a bit less and save enough for a kebab on the way home.
Bill: That's fine by me, mate, we can share the f**ker!
Goodness is it THAT time already?
Yep, that's just what Bill said when it was his round.
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.
Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!
I think this sums up why discussions on IHT get so heated.
People want to think that their success is all down to them and their efforts.
My take, as someone who has done reasonably well is that it is very easy to discount the role that fortune plays in individual success.
I was paid by the state to be the first person in my family to go to university. The state also paid my fees.
I was paid by the state to get a higher degree.
Up until now, I've been very lucky with health and I've never had a serious illness that stopped me working.
I've been exceptionally lucky in that the company I run has three times come close to failure, only to be invited to tender for game changing contracts.
My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years.
None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts. I've made the most of them, but in a different world, with a different roll of the dice, or a society that valued different things, I would have had a very different outcome.
It makes me humble and it makes me realise it's NOT all about me and my efforts. But I get that some people don't like considering that possibility.
-
Bill: I'm gonna get pissed tonight and blow all my money on drink.
Ben: I'm gonna drink a bit less and save enough for a kebab on the way home.
Bill: That's fine by me, mate, we can share the f**ker!
Goodness is it THAT time already?
Yep, that's just what Bill said when it was his round.
Trust me. If ever I had the misfortune to be sat with you in a pub, I'd buy you drinks till you couldn't talk.
-
...
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.
Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!
I think this sums up why discussions on IHT get so heated.
People want to think that their success is all down to them and their efforts.
My take, as someone who has done reasonably well is that it is very easy to discount the role that fortune plays in individual success.
I was paid by the state to be the first person in my family to go to university. The state also paid my fees.
I was paid by the state to get a higher degree.
Up until now, I've been very lucky with health and I've never had a serious illness that stopped me working.
I've been exceptionally lucky in that the company I run has three times come close to failure, only to be invited to tender for game changing contracts.
My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years.
None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts. I've made the most of them, but in a different world, with a different roll of the dice, or a society that valued different things, I would have had a very different outcome.
It makes me humble and it makes me realise it's NOT all about me and my efforts. But I get that some people don't like considering that possibility.
IHT adds £7 billion to the government's £788.8 billion tax collected by the HMRC. That's a relatively very small contribution of 0.008%.
It is a very unpopular tax because it is unfair, and probably not worth the discord it causes.
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.
Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!
I think this sums up why discussions on IHT get so heated.
People want to think that their success is all down to them and their efforts.
My take, as someone who has done reasonably well is that it is very easy to discount the role that fortune plays in individual success.
I was paid by the state to be the first person in my family to go to university. The state also paid my fees.
I was paid by the state to get a higher degree.
Up until now, I've been very lucky with health and I've never had a serious illness that stopped me working.
I've been exceptionally lucky in that the company I run has three times come close to failure, only to be invited to tender for game changing contracts.
My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years.
None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts. I've made the most of them, but in a different world, with a different roll of the dice, or a society that valued different things, I would have had a very different outcome.
It makes me humble and it makes me realise it's NOT all about me and my efforts. But I get that some people don't like considering that possibility.
IHT adds £7 billion to the government's £788.8 billion tax collected by the HMRC. That's a relatively very small contribution of 0.008%.
It is a very unpopular tax because it is unfair, and probably not worth the discord it causes.
1) £7bn is nearly 25% of the Defence Budget. It's equivalent to 1% on VAT.
2) Check your maths.
-
Well, they should increase other taxes to cover it then. It is an unfair tax and irrespective of how important you claim it is that doesn't make it a fair tax.
-
Well, they should increase other taxes to cover it then. It is an unfair tax and irrespective of how important you claim it is that doesn't make it a fair tax.
There is a large body of economics research that strongly points to the need for a wealth tax to keep vitality in economies. Happy to discuss the logic behind it if you want. IHT is the closest thing we have to a significant Wealth Tax.
Your "unfair" comment is based on a very simplistic assessment.
-
PS. Check your maths
-
And there are plenty of countries that have abolished it.
Maths isn't my strong point, so go on, tell me where I'm wrong.
-
There are plenty of countries that have implemented all sorts of damaging economic policies. I want my country to do the best it can, not make the same mistakes other countries make.
7 out of 788 is 0.88%, not 0.0088%.
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.
Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!
I think this sums up why discussions on IHT get so heated.
People want to think that their success is all down to them and their efforts.
My take, as someone who has done reasonably well is that it is very easy to discount the role that fortune plays in individual success.
I was paid by the state to be the first person in my family to go to university. The state also paid my fees.
I was paid by the state to get a higher degree.
Up until now, I've been very lucky with health and I've never had a serious illness that stopped me working.
I've been exceptionally lucky in that the company I run has three times come close to failure, only to be invited to tender for game changing contracts.
My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years.
None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts. I've made the most of them, but in a different world, with a different roll of the dice, or a society that valued different things, I would have had a very different outcome.
It makes me humble and it makes me realise it's NOT all about me and my efforts. But I get that some people don't like considering that possibility.
You've not been reading my responses have you?
I built my own house, me, nobody else!
The state didn't pay for me to go to University, I did.
Believe me when I say my success is down to me, nobody ever left me a penny, or contributed to anything I've produced.
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.
Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!
It's not too late to spend, or give it away, whatever gives you feel good.
Luck and fortune plays a part in all our lives. For sure it's poss to lead a less risky life, but still. Abuse, robbery, murder, ill health, your industry not being savaged by innovation, changes etc, are all in the lap of the gods. No one is saying you didn't work hard, be astute. But that's no guarantee of material wealth. You have been lucky, many haven't. More to the point, your kids have been lucky having you providing. How much will the relative quality of their lives be affected by having say an extra £100k which is effectively taken from the communities around them?
You'll need to explain to me how my kids have taken money from the communities around them if I manage to leave them anything. Are you suggesting that everything I leave behind belongs to the community? Communist nonsense.
Get this through your thick skull, its my money, I earned it, I paid tax on it.
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.
Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!
I think this sums up why discussions on IHT get so heated.
People want to think that their success is all down to them and their efforts.
My take, as someone who has done reasonably well is that it is very easy to discount the role that fortune plays in individual success.
I was paid by the state to be the first person in my family to go to university. The state also paid my fees.
I was paid by the state to get a higher degree.
Up until now, I've been very lucky with health and I've never had a serious illness that stopped me working.
I've been exceptionally lucky in that the company I run has three times come close to failure, only to be invited to tender for game changing contracts.
My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years.
None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts. I've made the most of them, but in a different world, with a different roll of the dice, or a society that valued different things, I would have had a very different outcome.
It makes me humble and it makes me realise it's NOT all about me and my efforts. But I get that some people don't like considering that possibility.
Luck,let me think?
Was it luck that enabled you to get good enough grades to be able to apply to go to Uni?
Was it luck that made you stay in and revise for your exams to gain your degree?
Was it luck that you were sensible enough to ensure you had a good diet and took after yourself physically?
Was it luck that you had enough drive and ambition to run your own company?
Was it luck that you left Denaby and moved to an area where property has increased at a decent rate?
"None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts"
Never heard such cobblers, of course it was all down to luck.
If i was you i'd rush out tonight and buy a lottery ticket because your the luckiest fu**er i've ever heard of.
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.
Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!
I think this sums up why discussions on IHT get so heated.
People want to think that their success is all down to them and their efforts.
My take, as someone who has done reasonably well is that it is very easy to discount the role that fortune plays in individual success.
I was paid by the state to be the first person in my family to go to university. The state also paid my fees.
I was paid by the state to get a higher degree.
Up until now, I've been very lucky with health and I've never had a serious illness that stopped me working.
I've been exceptionally lucky in that the company I run has three times come close to failure, only to be invited to tender for game changing contracts.
My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years.
None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts. I've made the most of them, but in a different world, with a different roll of the dice, or a society that valued different things, I would have had a very different outcome.
It makes me humble and it makes me realise it's NOT all about me and my efforts. But I get that some people don't like considering that possibility.
You've not been reading my responses have you?
I built my own house, me, nobody else!
The state didn't pay for me to go to University, I did.
Believe me when I say my success is down to me, nobody ever left me a penny, or contributed to anything I've produced.
Do you exist outside of society?
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.
Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!
I think this sums up why discussions on IHT get so heated.
People want to think that their success is all down to them and their efforts.
My take, as someone who has done reasonably well is that it is very easy to discount the role that fortune plays in individual success.
I was paid by the state to be the first person in my family to go to university. The state also paid my fees.
I was paid by the state to get a higher degree.
Up until now, I've been very lucky with health and I've never had a serious illness that stopped me working.
I've been exceptionally lucky in that the company I run has three times come close to failure, only to be invited to tender for game changing contracts.
My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years.
None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts. I've made the most of them, but in a different world, with a different roll of the dice, or a society that valued different things, I would have had a very different outcome.
It makes me humble and it makes me realise it's NOT all about me and my efforts. But I get that some people don't like considering that possibility.
Luck,let me think?
Was it luck that enabled you to get good enough grades to be able to apply to go to Uni?
Was it luck that made you stay in and revise for your exams to gain your degree?
Was it luck that you were sensible enough to ensure you had a good diet and took after yourself physically?
Was it luck that you had enough drive and ambition to run your own company?
Was it luck that you left Denaby and moved to an area where property has increased at a decent rate?
"None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts"
Never heard such cobblers, of course it was all down to luck.
If i was you i'd rush out tonight and buy a lottery ticket because your the luckiest fu**er i've ever heard of.
Well this is interesting. The bile that not being egotistical can provoke.
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.
Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!
I think this sums up why discussions on IHT get so heated.
People want to think that their success is all down to them and their efforts.
My take, as someone who has done reasonably well is that it is very easy to discount the role that fortune plays in individual success.
I was paid by the state to be the first person in my family to go to university. The state also paid my fees.
I was paid by the state to get a higher degree.
Up until now, I've been very lucky with health and I've never had a serious illness that stopped me working.
I've been exceptionally lucky in that the company I run has three times come close to failure, only to be invited to tender for game changing contracts.
My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years.
None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts. I've made the most of them, but in a different world, with a different roll of the dice, or a society that valued different things, I would have had a very different outcome.
It makes me humble and it makes me realise it's NOT all about me and my efforts. But I get that some people don't like considering that possibility.
You've not been reading my responses have you?
I built my own house, me, nobody else!
The state didn't pay for me to go to University, I did.
Believe me when I say my success is down to me, nobody ever left me a penny, or contributed to anything I've produced.
This is the problem when individuals appear to assume that their own experiences must be similar for everyone.
Your story is one that shows exactly why inheritance tax is wrong.
You and I have chosen different paths in terms of how our children receive an ‘inheritance’. I haven’t been additionally taxed on how I have financially helped my children, and neither should you.
It really should be that simple.
If someone decides they owe the state something when they die, then leave it something.
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.
Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!
I think this sums up why discussions on IHT get so heated.
People want to think that their success is all down to them and their efforts.
My take, as someone who has done reasonably well is that it is very easy to discount the role that fortune plays in individual success.
I was paid by the state to be the first person in my family to go to university. The state also paid my fees.
I was paid by the state to get a higher degree.
Up until now, I've been very lucky with health and I've never had a serious illness that stopped me working.
I've been exceptionally lucky in that the company I run has three times come close to failure, only to be invited to tender for game changing contracts.
My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years.
None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts. I've made the most of them, but in a different world, with a different roll of the dice, or a society that valued different things, I would have had a very different outcome.
It makes me humble and it makes me realise it's NOT all about me and my efforts. But I get that some people don't like considering that possibility.
Luck,let me think?
Was it luck that enabled you to get good enough grades to be able to apply to go to Uni?
Was it luck that made you stay in and revise for your exams to gain your degree?
Was it luck that you were sensible enough to ensure you had a good diet and took after yourself physically?
Was it luck that you had enough drive and ambition to run your own company?
Was it luck that you left Denaby and moved to an area where property has increased at a decent rate?
"None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts"
Never heard such cobblers, of course it was all down to luck.
If i was you i'd rush out tonight and buy a lottery ticket because your the luckiest fu**er i've ever heard of.
Well this is interesting. The bile that not being egotistical can provoke.
No bile here buddy just incredulity at what you just posted.
-
There are plenty of countries that have implemented all sorts of damaging economic policies. I want my country to do the best it can, not make the same mistakes other countries make.
7 out of 788 is 0.88%, not 0.0088%.
I also want my country to do well, but I also want it to be fair. Inheritance tax is unfair, so it should be abolished in my opinion. You, on the other hand, differ in that approach and insist on keeping it, despite its unfairness.
It seems I am with the majority opinion of UK citizens on this, and if there was a referendum on it, the current opinion would deem you a loser (again!).
I'm all for progress, and I don't think those countries that have abolished the Inheritance tax have given up on progress either. They obviously think it is the way forward, and so do I.
Regarding the figures I gave I forgot to X by 100. I did say my maths isn't one of my strong points. Mind you, the correct figures show that even more people are being ripped off by IHT than I first suggested. At least I can proudly say that wanting to spend other people's money who have had it taken off them unfairly isn't one of my strong points either.
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.
Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!
I think this sums up why discussions on IHT get so heated.
People want to think that their success is all down to them and their efforts.
My take, as someone who has done reasonably well is that it is very easy to discount the role that fortune plays in individual success.
I was paid by the state to be the first person in my family to go to university. The state also paid my fees.
I was paid by the state to get a higher degree.
Up until now, I've been very lucky with health and I've never had a serious illness that stopped me working.
I've been exceptionally lucky in that the company I run has three times come close to failure, only to be invited to tender for game changing contracts.
My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years.
None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts. I've made the most of them, but in a different world, with a different roll of the dice, or a society that valued different things, I would have had a very different outcome.
It makes me humble and it makes me realise it's NOT all about me and my efforts. But I get that some people don't like considering that possibility.
You've not been reading my responses have you?
I built my own house, me, nobody else!
The state didn't pay for me to go to University, I did.
Believe me when I say my success is down to me, nobody ever left me a penny, or contributed to anything I've produced.
This is the problem when individuals appear to assume that their own experiences must be similar for everyone.
Your story is one that shows exactly why inheritance tax is wrong.
You and I have chosen different paths in terms of how our children receive an ‘inheritance’. I haven’t been additionally taxed on how I have financially helped my children, and neither should you.
It really should be that simple.
If someone decides they owe the state something when they die, then leave it something.
Forgive me but the situation is FAR more complex than that. It's not a simple "What's mine is mine and I choose to do what I want with it in absolute isolation" issue.
Here's the key in my mind. EVERY decision that we make as individuals affects the whole of society. I think we have a responsibility as a society to attempt to incentivise individuals to do things that are not just what we want to do, but are better for the future of society. Because if we don't try to leave a better society than we inherit (sic) then we should be ashamed of ourselves.
And here's the thing with saying "My wealth is mine and mine to do what I want with."
There is a clear trend in all modern capitalist economies, that the rate of return on wealth is significantly greater than the increase in wages.
So, if you don't have a wealth tax, like IHT, wealth tends to get more and more concentrated over time. The children and grandchildren who inherit wealth will typically get wealthier themselves, even if they are no more able and work no harder than children who don't inherit wealth.
In other words, without meaning it, a society that allows wealth to be passed down the generations effectively pulls up the rope ladder behind the well off and makes it increasingly difficult for poor but talented people to succeed.
My take is that that sort of society is deeply unfair, and very likely to be deeply unstable. I think that is far, far less unfair a future to bequeath our kids than any unfairness in progressively taxing inheritances.
What I would argue we need to do is disincentivise wealth accumulation, and spread opportunity. One way you do that is to tax wealth and use that to incentivise work.
IHT is the nearest thing we have to a serious Wealth Tax. I'd go further and have a direct Wealth Tax, but in the absence of that, the last thing we want to do is eliminate IHT.
-
But IHT doesn’t just affect the very wealthy.
Have I been irresponsible towards society because I have spent any excess earnings (after taxes and NI and a pension that will help me in retirement) on my family. Should I have been less selfish and ensured I had some to leave to the state when I die?
Surely you can’t think that?
-
I think he does belton but probably won't admit to it.
-
But IHT doesn’t just affect the very wealthy.
Have I been irresponsible towards society because I have spent any excess earnings (after taxes and NI and a pension that will help me in retirement) on my family. Should I have been less selfish and ensured I had some to leave to the state when I die?
Surely you can’t think that?
I'm sorry Belton but that's an entirely false question.
It's not "spend it all or give it to the state" as I'm sure you do see.
The point of an inheritance tax on wealth is that you CAN leave most to your dependents. Just not all.
If you want not to be a wild spender, but instead choose to maximise what you pass on, that goes hand in hand with maximising what you pay in IHT (avoidance apart).
Surely you can't not see that?
-
It is a very interesting topic, seeing others points of view. Wealth as I said previously is comparative and depends greatly upon your own circumstances as to how you view it. Luck is a great variable, most I assume would say they were lucky to be born in a country that conquered rather than one that had uninvited and ill behaved 'guests'
I've had plenty of luck of both types which has greatly shaped my life, from flat broke, several times to a position of relative wealth.
-
But IHT doesn’t just affect the very wealthy.
Have I been irresponsible towards society because I have spent any excess earnings (after taxes and NI and a pension that will help me in retirement) on my family. Should I have been less selfish and ensured I had some to leave to the state when I die?
Surely you can’t think that?
I'm sorry Belton but that's an entirely false question.
It's not "spend it all or give it to the state" as I'm sure you do see.
The point of an inheritance tax on wealth is that you CAN leave most to your dependents. Just not all.
If you want not to be a wild spender, but instead choose to maximise what you pass on, that goes hand in hand with maximising what you pay in IHT (avoidance apart).
Surely you can't not see that?
It certainly isn’t a ‘false’ question, whatever that means. But you can choose not to answer it if you want.
Nowhere have I argued that I shouldn’t have to give ALL my money to the state. I’m not sure why you are suggesting I have.
I am not a wild spender. I like to think I have used some of my money to help my children become respectable members of society who most certainly do not use the state to feed off.
By the way, the money I’m talking about is minimal. I just chose not to save it until after I’m gone.
-
It IS a false question because the choice ISN'T between saving nothing (being "irresponsible towards society because I have spent any excess earnings " as you said) or saving only to give those savings to the state.
No-one does the latter.
So it's a question that doesn't exist in the real world.
The question is whether it is good for society to have ALL your savings passed down to your choice of beneficiaries, or whether a better outcome is to have SOME of that (rarely more than 20%, even for the very rich, and much less than that for most) redistributed in society.
I think the latter is a better outcome for society as a whole. For all the reasons I've given.
-
People assume that being privileged means you haven't had to work hard, and take it as some kind of grave insult. This thread is full of it. To my mind, if you are even in a position to be talking about leaving an estate worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, you are extraordinarily privileged in this day and age. Doesn't mean you didn't earn it, but for the millennials and those born after, there is next to no chance of that happening no matter how hard you work. Unless you can rely on your parents for help, of course, whether that's through inheritance or other means. I wouldn't have been able to afford a house if I wasn't lucky enough to live at home for a bit which let me save for a deposit, and the same goes for everyone I know of my age. That's the way society is set up now. It's only right for those who benefitted from a society that gave you low house prices, fair wages, and a continually improving standard of living to pay a bit back to correct the balance for future generations who have none of those things. Again, it doesn't mean you didn't have to work to make the most of those opportunities, and good for you if you did so, but most working people today do not have those same opportunities. That's why inheritance tax is needed.
It's not the fault of some 25 year old from Balby that they were born in an era of stagnant wage growth, crazy house prices, and of private landlords buying up all the housing stock and driving up rents. It's not their fault that they've lived through the same amount of recessions as someone born in the 1950s. And it's not their fault if their parents aren't well off enough to support them in finding a home.
That has to be redressed. If that means some next of kin kids have to make do with £400,000 instead of half a million when the time comes, or whatever it shakes out at, that's too bad.
-
Martin Lewis did a show on this subject last night so I guess it’s not just the Free Press that get their ideas from this forum.
Wonder what user name he goes under!
-
It IS a false question because the choice ISN'T between saving nothing (being "irresponsible towards society because I have spent any excess earnings " as you said) or saving only to give those savings to the state.
No-one does the latter.
So it's a question that doesn't exist in the real world.
The question is whether it is good for society to have ALL your savings passed down to your choice of beneficiaries, or whether a better outcome is to have SOME of that (rarely more than 20%, even for the very rich, and much less than that for most) redistributed in society.
I think the latter is a better outcome for society as a whole. For all the reasons I've given.
Billy. The key word to my question was SOME, not ALL. Let me rephrase it:
Am I being selfish towards society by choosing to leave no inheritance for my children after I die, resulting in leaving nothing to the state through inheritance tax?
And just to be clear, my decision was made without a single thought of inheritance tax.
-
No Belton. You're not.
-
So why is someone who chooses to do pretty much the same as me, only after they have died, selfish, because they don’t want to lose some of it to the state (as you’ve implied), just like I didn’t?
-
So why is someone who chooses to do pretty much the same as me, only after they have died, selfish, because they don’t want to lose some of it to the state (as you’ve implied), just like I didn’t?
You are putting words in my mouth that I have neither used nor had any intention of implying. Please don't do that.
-
So why is someone who chooses to do pretty much the same as me, only after they have died, selfish, because they don’t want to lose some of it to the state (as you’ve implied), just like I didn’t?
You are putting words in my mouth that I haven't used. Please don't do that.
I have done no such thing, hence the word ‘implied’. I was very careful to use that word in a seemingly futile attempt for not to accuse me of putting words into your mouth, as you often do.
You think it’s wrong for people not to want to pay inheritance tax. You don’t think what I’ve done is wrong.
What’s the difference?
-
I didn't "imply" them. You read an implication that never crossed my mind. It's not an uncommon issue when our opinions differ.
I do NOT think it is wrong for people not to want to pay ANY tax. Every nerve in my body wants to pay as little tax as I can get away with.
What I think is that taxes are necessary. And some of them that quite naturally feel unfair to the individual are actually beneficial for society as a whole.
-
I don’t think there is any sensible member on here who wouldn’t make a similar implication based on everything you’ve written on this subject.
However, if you say you didn’t mean that, then I accept that.
Back to my question:
What’s the difference?
-
It's all comparative pud
I have zero idea what you mean. What do you think about the tax?
I mean wealth is comparative, relative to what you have and to where you are likely to end up on the ladder You could also look at how poor football clubs manage compared to the premier league, look at IH as helping in a small way to assisting the clubs in the lower leagues.
if you need another example look no further than this recent article below and compare the plight of people described in it to your own.
IT helps level the playing field, assists in social mobility. I support anything that does that.
............. ''Physical and mental wellbeing, community building, life skills; the mothers and babies programme hits a lot of notes. That’s in part because it has to. Doncaster is one of the most impoverished places in England, where a third of children are living in poverty and 41% of residents fall into the bottom 20% of incomes nationwide. Women in Doncaster have the third-worst healthy life expectancy in the country, with an average of 24 years spent living with ill health (for men this figure is 21 years)'' .................
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/nov/11/babies-battle-ropes-and-billy-joel-how-doncaster-rovers-reach-out
-
Belton.
I don't flatter myself that I know what people's meaning on here is beyond the actual words they use. Respectfully, I'd suggest that a lot of the bad feeling that tends to crystallise in these discussions comes from people doing precisely that. But that's just my take.
I still don't know what your question is. Your last one used the word "selfish" and I've explained that I don't think that applies.
I think it's natural human instinct for most of us to indulge our offspring, whether that's by spending on them when you are alive, or by wanting them to inherit as much as possible when you are gone. Of course it is.
But I also think neither extreme is good for society. And I think society has the right to restrict individuals' behaviour.
As it happens, I think your extreme is the less damaging of the two, because you spending money provides someone else's income. That only becomes problematic if everyone does it and the result is massive inflationary pressures. But that's manageable.
For all the reasons I've said, I think that the unrestricted passing of wealth down generations is deeply problematic for society. But I understand the desire to do that and I understand people disliking being taxed on that. I just think that their annoyance is not a good enough reason not to impose that tax.
-
I’ll rephrase the question.
What is the difference between me giving my children X amount of money before I die and me giving X amount of money to my children after I die?
Why should one method be taxed and the other one not?
-
You have to live 7 years after you give money to children I believe, otherwise it's taxed
-
I’ll rephrase the question.
What is the difference between me giving my children X amount of money before I die and me giving X amount of money to my children after I die?
Why should one method be taxed and the other one not?
There is a major difference. It's about control and risk.
If you give large amounts of your wealth to your children well before you die, you are taking the risk that you won't yourself have a need for that money before you die, or that, if you do need it, your children give won't give you the rods, or have spent it all themselves.
-
Nice little autumn statement tax cut is a start.
-
I’ll rephrase the question.
What is the difference between me giving my children X amount of money before I die and me giving X amount of money to my children after I die?
Why should one method be taxed and the other one not?
There is a major difference. It's about control and risk.
If you give large amounts of your wealth to your children well before you die, you are taking the risk that you won't yourself have a need for that money before you die, or that, if you do need it, your children give won't give you the rods, or have spent it all themselves.
This is pointless.
I tried.
-
I’ll rephrase the question.
What is the difference between me giving my children X amount of money before I die and me giving X amount of money to my children after I die?
Why should one method be taxed and the other one not?
There is a major difference. It's about control and risk.
If you give large amounts of your wealth to your children well before you die, you are taking the risk that you won't yourself have a need for that money before you die, or that, if you do need it, your children give won't give you the rods, or have spent it all themselves.
This is pointless.
I tried.
Its not pointless Belton, but it reinforces doubt, if any ever had any!
Contrarians of the world 0 Every bugger else 1
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.
Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!
It's not too late to spend, or give it away, whatever gives you feel good.
Luck and fortune plays a part in all our lives. For sure it's poss to lead a less risky life, but still. Abuse, robbery, murder, ill health, your industry not being savaged by innovation, changes etc, are all in the lap of the gods. No one is saying you didn't work hard, be astute. But that's no guarantee of material wealth. You have been lucky, many haven't. More to the point, your kids have been lucky having you providing. How much will the relative quality of their lives be affected by having say an extra £100k which is effectively taken from the communities around them?
The politics of envy, not happy for people who have made good life choices but quick to fleece them because they have been "lucky"
Tragic.
The politics of wrong assumptions to justify selfishness.
Cheap.
-
Nice little autumn statement tax cut is a start.
The autumn statement must be quite good seeing as no one has been on condemning the government about any of it yet.
-
SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?
I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.
Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.
Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!
It's not too late to spend, or give it away, whatever gives you feel good.
Luck and fortune plays a part in all our lives. For sure it's poss to lead a less risky life, but still. Abuse, robbery, murder, ill health, your industry not being savaged by innovation, changes etc, are all in the lap of the gods. No one is saying you didn't work hard, be astute. But that's no guarantee of material wealth. You have been lucky, many haven't. More to the point, your kids have been lucky having you providing. How much will the relative quality of their lives be affected by having say an extra £100k which is effectively taken from the communities around them?
You'll need to explain to me how my kids have taken money from the communities around them if I manage to leave them anything. Are you suggesting that everything I leave behind belongs to the community? Communist nonsense.
Get this through your thick skull, its my money, I earned it, I paid tax on it.
Tax balances out the inequalities inherent in capitalism. Fact.
Leaving your kids money is not something I ever questioned. The amount is. You can leave them 500k tax free. Beyond that a tax is reasonable.
That's not communism, its social positivity.
-
I’ll rephrase the question.
What is the difference between me giving my children X amount of money before I die and me giving X amount of money to my children after I die?
Why should one method be taxed and the other one not?
There is a major difference. It's about control and risk.
If you give large amounts of your wealth to your children well before you die, you are taking the risk that you won't yourself have a need for that money before you die, or that, if you do need it, your children give won't give you the rods, or have spent it all themselves.
This is pointless.
I tried.
I'm genuinely stumped by that response.
I gave you an honest answer. There is a major difference between the two cases. If it's not the answer you want, there's not a lot I can do about that.
-
I’ll rephrase the question.
What is the difference between me giving my children X amount of money before I die and me giving X amount of money to my children after I die?
Why should one method be taxed and the other one not?
There is a major difference. It's about control and risk.
If you give large amounts of your wealth to your children well before you die, you are taking the risk that you won't yourself have a need for that money before you die, or that, if you do need it, your children give won't give you the rods, or have spent it all themselves.
This is pointless.
I tried.
I'm genuinely stumped by that response.
I gave you an honest answer. There is a major difference between the two cases. If it's not the answer you want, there's not a lot I can do about that.
Its not the answer BST because that's not what he asked.
He asked you to explain the difference between taxed after your dead to not being taxed while still alive.
Its not a difficult question?
-
I’ll rephrase the question.
What is the difference between me giving my children X amount of money before I die and me giving X amount of money to my children after I die?
Why should one method be taxed and the other one not?
There is a major difference. It's about control and risk.
If you give large amounts of your wealth to your children well before you die, you are taking the risk that you won't yourself have a need for that money before you die, or that, if you do need it, your children give won't give you the rods, or have spent it all themselves.
This is pointless.
I tried.
I'm genuinely stumped by that response.
I gave you an honest answer. There is a major difference between the two cases. If it's not the answer you want, there's not a lot I can do about that.
This whole thread is about inheritance tax, not about whether it is potentially foolish to give large sums of money to my children before my old age.
Not that I have.
-
Anyway. It's all academic now. No change to IHT, which I applaud.
NIC reduction isn't the worst way to reduce taxes if that's what you choose to do. Although most of that reduction is clawed backas once again Income Tax allowances aren't being raised even though we've had rampant inflation for a couple of years.
The real shocker to come out of the Autumn Statement is in the predictions for growth (next year, down from the previously expected 1.8% to just 0.7%) and inflation & interest rates, both of which are expected to come down much more slowly than previously expected.
This means that by the end of next year, the economy will have grown by only 1% a year since 2016 and only 1.5% a year while the Tories have been in power. For most of the post-War period until 2010, it was growing at above 2.5% per year.
That is a eye watering difference. It means by the end of this Tory Govt, our economy will be producing something like £350bn less per year than we would if we'd matched previous years. £5000 for every woman, man and child in the country. Lost. Every single year.
It's truly heartbreaking because it was all avoidable. We chose to throw away that future. We aren't the only ones. Germany and much of Europe made the same mistakes. But that doesn't make our failures any less.
-
I’ll rephrase the question.
What is the difference between me giving my children X amount of money before I die and me giving X amount of money to my children after I die?
Why should one method be taxed and the other one not?
There is a major difference. It's about control and risk.
If you give large amounts of your wealth to your children well before you die, you are taking the risk that you won't yourself have a need for that money before you die, or that, if you do need it, your children give won't give you the rods, or have spent it all themselves.
This is pointless.
I tried.
I'm genuinely stumped by that response.
I gave you an honest answer. There is a major difference between the two cases. If it's not the answer you want, there's not a lot I can do about that.
Its not the answer BST because that's not what he asked.
He asked you to explain the difference between taxed after your dead to not being taxed while still alive.
Its not a difficult question?
And I explained why the two cases are different.
-
I’ll rephrase the question.
What is the difference between me giving my children X amount of money before I die and me giving X amount of money to my children after I die?
Why should one method be taxed and the other one not?
There is a major difference. It's about control and risk.
If you give large amounts of your wealth to your children well before you die, you are taking the risk that you won't yourself have a need for that money before you die, or that, if you do need it, your children give won't give you the rods, or have spent it all themselves.
This is pointless.
I tried.
I'm genuinely stumped by that response.
I gave you an honest answer. There is a major difference between the two cases. If it's not the answer you want, there's not a lot I can do about that.
This whole thread is about inheritance tax, not about whether it is potentially foolish to give large sums of money to my children before my old age.
Not that I have.
Then I genuinely don't have a clue what you are talking about.
You asked:
"What is the difference between me giving my children X amount of money before I die and me giving X amount of money to my children after I die?"
I answered. I explained what the difference is.
-
'A lot of these numbers... are sort of made up' - Paul Johnson, IFS, in his review of the Autumn Statement.
https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/1727353906341282050
-
I’ll rephrase the question.
What is the difference between me giving my children X amount of money before I die and me giving X amount of money to my children after I die?
Why should one method be taxed and the other one not?
There is a major difference. It's about control and risk.
If you give large amounts of your wealth to your children well before you die, you are taking the risk that you won't yourself have a need for that money before you die, or that, if you do need it, your children give won't give you the rods, or have spent it all themselves.
This is pointless.
I tried.
I'm genuinely stumped by that response.
I gave you an honest answer. There is a major difference between the two cases. If it's not the answer you want, there's not a lot I can do about that.
This whole thread is about inheritance tax, not about whether it is potentially foolish to give large sums of money to my children before my old age.
Not that I have.
Then I genuinely don't have a clue what you are talking about.
You asked:
"What is the difference between me giving my children X amount of money before I die and me giving X amount of money to my children after I die?"
I answered. I explained what the difference is.
As in why one should be taxed and the other not.
As my previous posts made absolutely clear.
You are just being silly.
-
I'm really not being silly. I honestly thought the point I'm making is obvious.
Giving money as a gift to children well before you die is a Govt-sanctioned means of tax avoidance. But it comes with the risk of you losing control of your money when you might end up needing it. So there's a potential individual advantage, offset by a potential individual risk.
That's the case why pre-death gifts are treated differently than post death inheritances. You asked what the difference was.
Given your responses, I'm wondering if you meant "Do YOU think there should be a difference in how they are treated for tax purposes?" If that's what you meant, my apologies for not reading that into your question. And in that case, my answer would be "no I don't think they should be treated differently." Because, as I've said before, I think the concept of relatively large amounts of money being passed down family lines without being taxed to facilitate a redistribution is not good for society.
Does that clear it up?
-
I'm really not being silly. I honestly thought the point I'm making is obvious.
Giving money as a gift to children well before you die is a Govt-sanctioned means of tax avoidance. But it comes with the risk of you losing control of your money when you might end up needing it. So there's a potential individual advantage, offset by a potential individual risk.
That's the case why pre-death gifts are treated differently than post death inheritances. You asked what the difference was.
Given your responses, I'm wondering if you meant "Do YOU think there should be a difference in how they are treated for tax purposes?" If that's what you meant, my apologies for not reading that into your question. And in that case, my answer would be "no I don't think they should be treated differently." Because, as I've said before, I think the concept of relatively large amounts of money being passed down family lines without being taxed to facilitate a redistribution is not good for society.
Does that clear it up?
No
I haven’t done anything to avoid paying tax.
Let’s just leave it unclear and I’ll try to learn from the experience.
-
Then I'm honestly at a loss as to what question you want me to answer.
You asked "What is the difference between me giving my children X amount of money before I die and me giving X amount of money to my children after I die?"
I've done my level best to explain why I think, for IHT purposes, there IS a difference and also why I think there shouldn't be a difference.
I can't give you any other answer.
-
I'm really not being silly. I honestly thought the point I'm making is obvious.
Giving money as a gift to children well before you die is a Govt-sanctioned means of tax avoidance. But it comes with the risk of you losing control of your money when you might end up needing it. So there's a potential individual advantage, offset by a potential individual risk.
That's the case why pre-death gifts are treated differently than post death inheritances. You asked what the difference was.
Given your responses, I'm wondering if you meant "Do YOU think there should be a difference in how they are treated for tax purposes?" If that's what you meant, my apologies for not reading that into your question. And in that case, my answer would be "no I don't think they should be treated differently." Because, as I've said before, I think the concept of relatively large amounts of money being passed down family lines without being taxed to facilitate a redistribution is not good for society.
Does that clear it up?
But BST that is the problem! Why should people be put in such a situation that they have to gamble and hope that their health holds out until they go? Why should it be such a black and white tax which collects very little in terms of the tax take, causes so much anger and does nothing to create the social injustice that you hope it solves? As the country with just about the highest IHT take amongst western democracies and yet we have a country that is constantly overtaxed and none of its social inequalities are dealt with.
Surely letting people like me keep my money, look after myself and my wife into our later years and not have to worry about making ends meet just to avoid a tax which is inherently unfair? That's what a modern and responsible society should be doing. And as pension pots are now being mandatory throughout the workforce more and more people will be faced with this situation as the government rolls back on its duty to take care of its citizens. Were being run by governments without a social conscience.
-
I’ll rephrase the question.
What is the difference between me giving my children X amount of money before I die and me giving X amount of money to my children after I die?
Why should one method be taxed and the other one not?
There is a major difference. It's about control and risk.
If you give large amounts of your wealth to your children well before you die, you are taking the risk that you won't yourself have a need for that money before you die, or that, if you do need it, your children give won't give you the rods, or have spent it all themselves.
This is pointless.
I tried.
I feel for you Belton, I really do.
-
I'm really not being silly. I honestly thought the point I'm making is obvious.
Giving money as a gift to children well before you die is a Govt-sanctioned means of tax avoidance. But it comes with the risk of you losing control of your money when you might end up needing it. So there's a potential individual advantage, offset by a potential individual risk.
That's the case why pre-death gifts are treated differently than post death inheritances. You asked what the difference was.
Given your responses, I'm wondering if you meant "Do YOU think there should be a difference in how they are treated for tax purposes?" If that's what you meant, my apologies for not reading that into your question. And in that case, my answer would be "no I don't think they should be treated differently." Because, as I've said before, I think the concept of relatively large amounts of money being passed down family lines without being taxed to facilitate a redistribution is not good for society.
Does that clear it up?
But BST that is the problem! Why should people be put in such a situation that they have to gamble and hope that their health holds out until they go? Why should it be such a black and white tax which collects very little in terms of the tax take, causes so much anger and does nothing to create the social injustice that you hope it solves? As the country with just about the highest IHT take amongst western democracies and yet we have a country that is constantly overtaxed and none of its social inequalities are dealt with.
Surely letting people like me keep my money, look after myself and my wife into our later years and not have to worry about making ends meet just to avoid a tax which is inherently unfair? That's what a modern and responsible society should be doing. And as pension pots are now being mandatory throughout the workforce more and more people will be faced with this situation as the government rolls back on its duty to take care of its citizens. Were being run by governments without a social conscience.
Your children will not pay Inheritence Tax on the first £325000 of your estate. That's about a third of the total wealth someone on the average wage will have earnt in a life time. It makes you one of the richest 10% in the country.
How much above that do you have that you are worried about them paying tax on?
Plus of course it's your choice. Whether or not, as one of the richest 10% in the country, to pay for your own health requirements in your old age. Or put it to one side for your family when you have gone and let the state/taxpayer pay for your health care.
-
Number of people David Cameron’s Coalition Government took out of paying income tax: 3.2m (Treasury, 2015)
Number of people Sunak's Government brought back into paying income tax: 4 million (OBR, today)
Vote Tory
https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/1727396988935655768
-
I’ll rephrase the question.
What is the difference between me giving my children X amount of money before I die and me giving X amount of money to my children after I die?
Why should one method be taxed and the other one not?
There is a major difference. It's about control and risk.
If you give large amounts of your wealth to your children well before you die, you are taking the risk that you won't yourself have a need for that money before you die, or that, if you do need it, your children give won't give you the rods, or have spent it all themselves.
This is pointless.
I tried.
I feel for you Belton, I really do.
Is that really necessary?
-
I'm really not being silly. I honestly thought the point I'm making is obvious.
Giving money as a gift to children well before you die is a Govt-sanctioned means of tax avoidance. But it comes with the risk of you losing control of your money when you might end up needing it. So there's a potential individual advantage, offset by a potential individual risk.
That's the case why pre-death gifts are treated differently than post death inheritances. You asked what the difference was.
Given your responses, I'm wondering if you meant "Do YOU think there should be a difference in how they are treated for tax purposes?" If that's what you meant, my apologies for not reading that into your question. And in that case, my answer would be "no I don't think they should be treated differently." Because, as I've said before, I think the concept of relatively large amounts of money being passed down family lines without being taxed to facilitate a redistribution is not good for society.
Does that clear it up?
But BST that is the problem! Why should people be put in such a situation that they have to gamble and hope that their health holds out until they go? Why should it be such a black and white tax which collects very little in terms of the tax take, causes so much anger and does nothing to create the social injustice that you hope it solves? As the country with just about the highest IHT take amongst western democracies and yet we have a country that is constantly overtaxed and none of its social inequalities are dealt with.
Surely letting people like me keep my money, look after myself and my wife into our later years and not have to worry about making ends meet just to avoid a tax which is inherently unfair? That's what a modern and responsible society should be doing. And as pension pots are now being mandatory throughout the workforce more and more people will be faced with this situation as the government rolls back on its duty to take care of its citizens. Were being run by governments without a social conscience.
[/quote
You may have noted I said I would prefer for gifts during life not to be exempt from IHT. That would eliminate that dilemma.
-
Anyway. It's all academic now. No change to IHT, which I applaud.
NIC reduction isn't the worst way to reduce taxes if that's what you choose to do. Although most of that reduction is clawed backas once again Income Tax allowances aren't being raised even though we've had rampant inflation for a couple of years.
The real shocker to come out of the Autumn Statement is in the predictions for growth (next year, down from the previously expected 1.8% to just 0.7%) and inflation & interest rates, both of which are expected to come down much more slowly than previously expected.
This means that by the end of next year, the economy will have grown by only 1% a year since 2016 and only 1.5% a year while the Tories have been in power. For most of the post-War period until 2010, it was growing at above 2.5% per year.
That is a eye watering difference. It means by the end of this Tory Govt, our economy will be producing something like £350bn less per year than we would if we'd matched previous years. £5000 for every woman, man and child in the country. Lost. Every single year.
It's truly heartbreaking because it was all avoidable. We chose to throw away that future. We aren't the only ones. Germany and much of Europe made the same mistakes. But that doesn't make our failures any less.
BST in this summarisation did you factor in that prior to the period mentioned nobody had to deal with a pandemic, a European war and a global energy crisis?
Your last paragraph does mention that our direct competitors also suffered, does that make their failures any less?
-
It's all comparative pud
I have zero idea what you mean. What do you think about the tax?
I mean wealth is comparative, relative to what you have and to where you are likely to end up on the ladder You could also look at how poor football clubs manage compared to the premier league, look at IH as helping in a small way to assisting the clubs in the lower leagues.
if you need another example look no further than this recent article below and compare the plight of people described in it to your own.
IT helps level the playing field, assists in social mobility. I support anything that does that.
............. ''Physical and mental wellbeing, community building, life skills; the mothers and babies programme hits a lot of notes. That’s in part because it has to. Doncaster is one of the most impoverished places in England, where a third of children are living in poverty and 41% of residents fall into the bottom 20% of incomes nationwide. Women in Doncaster have the third-worst healthy life expectancy in the country, with an average of 24 years spent living with ill health (for men this figure is 21 years)'' .................
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/nov/11/babies-battle-ropes-and-billy-joel-how-doncaster-rovers-reach-out
Bump
what do you think of the tax, pud?
-
Anyway. It's all academic now. No change to IHT, which I applaud.
NIC reduction isn't the worst way to reduce taxes if that's what you choose to do. Although most of that reduction is clawed backas once again Income Tax allowances aren't being raised even though we've had rampant inflation for a couple of years.
The real shocker to come out of the Autumn Statement is in the predictions for growth (next year, down from the previously expected 1.8% to just 0.7%) and inflation & interest rates, both of which are expected to come down much more slowly than previously expected.
This means that by the end of next year, the economy will have grown by only 1% a year since 2016 and only 1.5% a year while the Tories have been in power. For most of the post-War period until 2010, it was growing at above 2.5% per year.
That is a eye watering difference. It means by the end of this Tory Govt, our economy will be producing something like £350bn less per year than we would if we'd matched previous years. £5000 for every woman, man and child in the country. Lost. Every single year.
It's truly heartbreaking because it was all avoidable. We chose to throw away that future. We aren't the only ones. Germany and much of Europe made the same mistakes. But that doesn't make our failures any less.
BST in this summarisation did you factor in that prior to the period mentioned nobody had to deal with a pandemic, a European war and a global energy crisis?
Your last paragraph does mention that our direct competitors also suffered, does that make their failures any less?
DD.
We were massively underperforming historic trends from well before any of those issues emerged.
In 2010, we CHOSE to ignore 80 years of understanding of how to get out of serious recessions. Some of us were screaming at the time about the scale of damage that mistake would cause. Personally, I've no pleasure in being proved right on that, but I do wish people like you wouldn't keep trying to find excuses for the failure.
And yes, Germany forced Europe into nearly as bad an outcome. There's no solace in that for anyone.
-
I’ll rephrase the question.
What is the difference between me giving my children X amount of money before I die and me giving X amount of money to my children after I die?
Why should one method be taxed and the other one not?
There is a major difference. It's about control and risk.
If you give large amounts of your wealth to your children well before you die, you are taking the risk that you won't yourself have a need for that money before you die, or that, if you do need it, your children give won't give you the rods, or have spent it all themselves.
This is pointless.
I tried.
I feel for you Belton, I really do.
Is that really necessary?
Yes, under the circumstances, I do believe it is a valid statement.
-
I’m sure I heard it suggested on the morning news that Hunt is contemplating abolishing IHT altogether next year.
-
But BST that is the problem! Why should people be put in such a situation that they have to gamble and hope that their health holds out until they go? Why should it be such a black and white tax which collects very little in terms of the tax take, causes so much anger and does nothing to create the social injustice that you hope it solves? As the country with just about the highest IHT take amongst western democracies and yet we have a country that is constantly overtaxed and none of its social inequalities are dealt with.
Surely letting people like me keep my money, look after myself and my wife into our later years and not have to worry about making ends meet just to avoid a tax which is inherently unfair? That's what a modern and responsible society should be doing. And as pension pots are now being mandatory throughout the workforce more and more people will be faced with this situation as the government rolls back on its duty to take care of its citizens. Were being run by governments without a social conscience.
It's a choice. If someone doesn't trust that their kids will help them out with thepre death inheritance they'd be gifted, then don't do it. It's safer to not do that and let them pay the tax on that anount over half million £s.
IHT does collect taxes that affects services and/or other taxation levels. Just because it isn't the biggest tax doesn't mean it makes it unimportant.
The anger appears to be in certain people that think they're being robbed? They're not, as explained above. That anger would be best directed at solving their problem or emotional issues, or accepting that £800,000 out of £1,000,000 isn't much of a price to pay and the benefits that can bring to there being a better society - less crime, more choice, better protection to the elderly, social stability ETC - is also a benefit to the recipients of that £800,000. A win win for them.
Your stats over taxation are questionable at best. Levels of IHT in other countries (albeit in 2015/2019) - France, Japan, Belgium, Germany, S Korea are all higher, the US and Netherlands are the same. Yes, many are lower, many are 0% but then they will mainly be taxed in other ways.
Your choice about you worrying is a choice. The tax you think is unfair is thought by most to be fair. Not sure where your comments in the last para are going. Seems it slips from your worry if you make a choice to give away money to avoid a tax, then towards pension issues and how that is making others compelled to worry (it clearly is not - logic), and then towards governments not having a social conscience if they use taxation of wealth to make a better society? You might want to clarify some of that.
And quit being a potty mouth, it doesn't look grown up.
-
It's all comparative pud
I have zero idea what you mean. What do you think about the tax?
I mean wealth is comparative, relative to what you have and to where you are likely to end up on the ladder You could also look at how poor football clubs manage compared to the premier league, look at IH as helping in a small way to assisting the clubs in the lower leagues.
if you need another example look no further than this recent article below and compare the plight of people described in it to your own.
IT helps level the playing field, assists in social mobility. I support anything that does that.
............. ''Physical and mental wellbeing, community building, life skills; the mothers and babies programme hits a lot of notes. That’s in part because it has to. Doncaster is one of the most impoverished places in England, where a third of children are living in poverty and 41% of residents fall into the bottom 20% of incomes nationwide. Women in Doncaster have the third-worst healthy life expectancy in the country, with an average of 24 years spent living with ill health (for men this figure is 21 years)'' .................
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/nov/11/babies-battle-ropes-and-billy-joel-how-doncaster-rovers-reach-out
Bump
what do you think of the tax, pud?
I think it's ridiculous if I'm honest, for the points I've made and others have. There's better ways to raise the money than taxing death, I gave one simple option in the thread.
I've spent years grumbling about the unfairness of tax since the age of about 14, I doubt I'll change that view. My biggest grumble overall is the view that government is the best method to distribute tax money, welfare etc. It isn't.
-
BFYP.
To misquote Churchill, I'd say that Government is the worst way to run welfare, tax etc.
Apart from all the other ways you might want to try.
PS
IHT doesn't tax death. It taxes bequeathed wealth.
-
'A lot of these numbers... are sort of made up' - Paul Johnson, IFS, in his review of the Autumn Statement.
https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/1727353906341282050
It's certainly starting to look that way as people start to drill down into the details that Hunt didn't mention.
The numbers stack up on the assumption that:
1) All Govt spending apart from health, defence and education is set to fall by 4.1% each and every year for the next 5 years.
2) The best part of half a million severely incapacitated people will be moved off that level of welfare.
Aye. Good luck with that.
A cynic might call this a scorched earth policy, leaving those who take over next year with the unpopular job of taking the really hard decisions.
-
'A lot of these numbers... are sort of made up' - Paul Johnson, IFS, in his review of the Autumn Statement.
https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/1727353906341282050
It's certainly starting to look that way as people start to drill down into the details that Hunt didn't mention.
The numbers stack up on the assumption that:
1) All Govt spending apart from health, defence and education is set to fall by 4.1% each and every year for the next 5 years.
2) The best part of half a million severely incapacitated people will be moved off that level of welfare.
Aye. Good luck with that.
A cynic might call this a scorched earth policy, leaving those who take over next year with the unpopular job of taking the really hard decisions.
Excuses already?
-
tory governments have the answers:
.......... ''But to achieve this, No 10 needs to answer another question: what’s the strategy? On NI in two years alone the Tories have gone through four iterations: increase it for the NHS, cut it under Liz Truss, oppose a cut under Rishi Sunak, then a bigger cut than expected with this latest statement. Big state, small state, five promises, long-term decisions, change, conservatism, another five promises: the government needs to settle on what its message is, fast'' ..........
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/22/will-jeremy-hunt-autumn-statement-revive-the-tories-election-chances-our-panel-responds
I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure
vote tory
-
Streets saying the Tories are looking at a spring election. Had to get one last kick in at the disabled for old times sake, it seems.
-
I guess that anyone that bought a house in the 1970s rather than the 50s or 60s was very lucky indeed, unless of course you were able to predict the market.
''Average UK house prices hit a record high in June, making today’s average house price 65 times more expensive than in 1970''
In 1950, the average cost of a new house was around £65,224 in today’s money
In 1960, the average cost of a home was approximately £55,784
At the start of the 1970s the average house price was £4,057
In 1980, the average house price shot up to £20,268
In 1990, it rose again to £58,153
In 2000, the average cost of a home reached £89,597
In 2010, this almost doubled to £170,365
In 2020, the average property in the UK valued at £249,633
And now in June 2022, house prices have reached a record high of £271,613
https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/uk-house-prices-are-65-times-higher-today-than-in-1970/138813/
This of course doesn't take into consideration where wages were over that period.
-
Hunt saying he's determined to get the 100,000 long term claimants of benefits with enduring mental health issues down to 30,000.
My son will fall into that bracket and has never, nor will he ever, be capable of holding down a job and there are at least 100,000 with his illness in the same boat.
So good luck with that Jeremy.
-
Hunt saying he's determined to get the 100,000 long term claimants of benefits with enduring mental health issues down to 30,000.
My son will fall into that bracket and has never, nor will he ever, be capable of holding down a job and there are at least 100,000 with his illness in the same boat.
So good luck with that Jeremy.
I can only assume that he has never lived with anyone with a mental health illness.
Actually, I'm more cynical than that. He KNOWS this is not possible. He's chucking red meat to those parts of the Tory party who think these people are workshy skivers, knowing damn well that they'll be out of power in 12 months and someone else will have to clean up this shit.
-
Most people with disabilities want a normal life, to be treated as equals and given equal opportunities, those with more serious disabilities would surely want the same I would think, if it was at all possible. And of course if there were jobs available.
-
I guess that anyone that bought a house in the 1970s rather than the 50s or 60s was very lucky indeed, unless of course you were able to predict the market.
''Average UK house prices hit a record high in June, making today’s average house price 65 times more expensive than in 1970''
In 1950, the average cost of a new house was around £65,224 in today’s money
In 1960, the average cost of a home was approximately £55,784
At the start of the 1970s the average house price was £4,057
In 1980, the average house price shot up to £20,268
In 1990, it rose again to £58,153
In 2000, the average cost of a home reached £89,597
In 2010, this almost doubled to £170,365
In 2020, the average property in the UK valued at £249,633
And now in June 2022, house prices have reached a record high of £271,613
https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/uk-house-prices-are-65-times-higher-today-than-in-1970/138813/
This of course doesn't take into consideration where wages were over that period.
Is the 1970's figure correct Sydney? Are you sure it is 4,000 rather then 40,000? Your point about the 1970's would still be valid. If it is 4K, what happened? A lot of building houses?
I was out of the country living in Germany and the Netherlands, but out of interest there was a large housing price crash at the beginning of the 1980's in the Netherlands. But it was a different market - most buyers in NL bought a house for life rather than gradually climbing up the housing ladder.
-
Hunt saying he's determined to get the 100,000 long term claimants of benefits with enduring mental health issues down to 30,000.
My son will fall into that bracket and has never, nor will he ever, be capable of holding down a job and there are at least 100,000 with his illness in the same boat.
So good luck with that Jeremy.
I can only assume that he has never lived with anyone with a mental health illness.
Actually, I'm more cynical than that. He KNOWS this is not possible. He's chucking red meat to those parts of the Tory party who think these people are workshy skivers, knowing damn well that they'll be out of power in 12 months and someone else will have to clean up this shit.
Some other interesting quotes;
We won’t get our economy motoring and raise living standards unless we tackle the huge rise in economic inactivity – the number of people out of work and not looking for work. This is urgent. We have seen half a million more people fall into inactivity since the start of the pandemic. It is an increase that is larger and more sustained than in any other G7 economy.
The number who cite long-term sickness as the reason for being out of the workforce has reached its highest ever level: over 2.5 million people. That amounts to 400,000 more than before the pandemic.
A smaller workforce means lower incomes, lower economic output, and weaker public finances. But it is also devastating for individuals’ lives. What a waste of opportunity when someone wants to work but is left without the support to do so. This is the case for 600,000 people who are long-term sick but want a job.
1.3 million of those out of the workforce due to long-term sickness have a mental health condition. And that number has climbed in recent years too, up by 200,000 since 2018.
-
I guess that anyone that bought a house in the 1970s rather than the 50s or 60s was very lucky indeed, unless of course you were able to predict the market.
''Average UK house prices hit a record high in June, making today’s average house price 65 times more expensive than in 1970''
In 1950, the average cost of a new house was around £65,224 in today’s money
In 1960, the average cost of a home was approximately £55,784
At the start of the 1970s the average house price was £4,057
In 1980, the average house price shot up to £20,268
In 1990, it rose again to £58,153
In 2000, the average cost of a home reached £89,597
In 2010, this almost doubled to £170,365
In 2020, the average property in the UK valued at £249,633
And now in June 2022, house prices have reached a record high of £271,613
https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/uk-house-prices-are-65-times-higher-today-than-in-1970/138813/
This of course doesn't take into consideration where wages were over that period.
Is the 1970's figure correct Sydney? Are you sure it is 4,000 rather then 40,000? Your point about the 1970's would still be valid. If it is 4K, what happened? A lot of building houses?
I was out of the country living in Germany and the Netherlands, but out of interest there was a large housing price crash at the beginning of the 1980's in the Netherlands. But it was a different market - most buyers in NL bought a house for life rather than gradually climbing up the housing ladder.
Syds post jumps around the figures a bit Dutch.
The figures he gives for the 50s and 60s are related to todays money but none of the others are, despite the 70s being fifty years ago so it doesn’t give a realistic comparison.
However, the 1970 figure he quotes is probably not far off the mark.
My first house was an unfinished new build which we got in 1974 at a cost of £4215.
We then had to fit it out, bathrooms, kitchen, heating, decorations etc.
I supposed a £4057 average house price in 1970 is realistic.
-
Definitely there are many health benefits scammers, but probably many times more than that who are not getting their deserved benefits. Universal Basic Income would easily, and economically, help address all of this.
-
I guess that anyone that bought a house in the 1970s rather than the 50s or 60s was very lucky indeed, unless of course you were able to predict the market.
''Average UK house prices hit a record high in June, making today’s average house price 65 times more expensive than in 1970''
In 1950, the average cost of a new house was around £65,224 in today’s money
In 1960, the average cost of a home was approximately £55,784
At the start of the 1970s the average house price was £4,057
In 1980, the average house price shot up to £20,268
In 1990, it rose again to £58,153
In 2000, the average cost of a home reached £89,597
In 2010, this almost doubled to £170,365
In 2020, the average property in the UK valued at £249,633
And now in June 2022, house prices have reached a record high of £271,613
https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/uk-house-prices-are-65-times-higher-today-than-in-1970/138813/
This of course doesn't take into consideration where wages were over that period.
Is the 1970's figure correct Sydney? Are you sure it is 4,000 rather then 40,000? Your point about the 1970's would still be valid. If it is 4K, what happened? A lot of building houses?
I was out of the country living in Germany and the Netherlands, but out of interest there was a large housing price crash at the beginning of the 1980's in the Netherlands. But it was a different market - most buyers in NL bought a house for life rather than gradually climbing up the housing ladder.
Assume the pre-decimalisation figures are adjusted for inflation, whereas the post-decimalisation ones aren't.
Using hound's house as an example, he paid the equivalent of £63,310 for his first house when adjusted for inflation. Lucky him!
-
Definitely there are many health benefits scammers, but probably many times more than that who are not getting their deserved benefits. Universal Basic Income would easily, and economically, help address all of this.
Those health benefit scammers are small in financial numbers compared to the Covid contract scammers and MP’s that milk their own system and tax dodge, from all sides of the house. But yet again the Government go after the poor
-
Definitely there are many health benefits scammers, but probably many times more than that who are not getting their deserved benefits. Universal Basic Income would easily, and economically, help address all of this.
Those health benefit scammers are small in financial numbers compared to the Covid contract scammers and MP’s that milk their own system and tax dodge, from all sides of the house. But yet again the Government go after the poor
To paraphrase Forest Gump - Tory is as Tory does.
-
A couple of my mates who both married in 1971 bought new build semis on Long Close Bessecar for about £2,300. A 4 bedroom detached at the bottom bottom of the street was about £4,100.
I married in May 1972 and gazumping had started by then. I ended up paying £4,200 for an old semi in Sprotborough. Prices went crazy.
-
I guess that anyone that bought a house in the 1970s rather than the 50s or 60s was very lucky indeed, unless of course you were able to predict the market.
''Average UK house prices hit a record high in June, making today’s average house price 65 times more expensive than in 1970''
In 1950, the average cost of a new house was around £65,224 in today’s money
In 1960, the average cost of a home was approximately £55,784
At the start of the 1970s the average house price was £4,057
In 1980, the average house price shot up to £20,268
In 1990, it rose again to £58,153
In 2000, the average cost of a home reached £89,597
In 2010, this almost doubled to £170,365
In 2020, the average property in the UK valued at £249,633
And now in June 2022, house prices have reached a record high of £271,613
https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/uk-house-prices-are-65-times-higher-today-than-in-1970/138813/
This of course doesn't take into consideration where wages were over that period.
Is the 1970's figure correct Sydney? Are you sure it is 4,000 rather then 40,000? Your point about the 1970's would still be valid. If it is 4K, what happened? A lot of building houses?
I was out of the country living in Germany and the Netherlands, but out of interest there was a large housing price crash at the beginning of the 1980's in the Netherlands. But it was a different market - most buyers in NL bought a house for life rather than gradually climbing up the housing ladder.
Assume the pre-decimalisation figures are adjusted for inflation, whereas the post-decimalisation ones aren't.
Using hound's house as an example, he paid the equivalent of £63,310 for his first house when adjusted for inflation. Lucky him!
Similar story for me.
First house bought for £31k in 1992. Two bed little semi in Conisbrough with little gardens front and back an a garage. That's equivalent to £65,000in today's money according to the BoE inflation calculator.
Just checked on Zoopla. It's currently valued at £136-150k.
I really don't get property owners of my generation and older who don't engage with how astonishingly lucky they have been to see house valuations rise so far out of proportion with salaries or the general economy. And how so many in the younger generations are being denied the right to ever own a home.
-
Why it no longer pays to save for your retirement
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/pensions/state-pension-triple-lock-income-tax-jeremy-hunt/
Retirees will be paying income tax on the state pension within five years if the Tory deep freeze on tax thresholds continues.
Jeremy Hunt hailed the Government’s commitment to the triple lock as one of the “largest ever” cash increases to the state pension, boasting that it showed his Conservative Party “will always back our pensioners”.
What he didn’t say is that those who save for their own retirement are being punished heavily for their prudence under the Tories.
The truth is that for millions of pensioners, a large slice of their triple lock pay rise will be eaten up by income tax.
And let’s not forget that pensioners who pay income tax won’t see any of the benefits of the cut to National Insurance, which the over-66s do not pay.
The triple lock promise guarantees to increase the state pension every year, using the highest of either inflation, wages or 2.5pc.
Analysis of Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasts reveal that the new state pension is now expected to rise from just over £11,500 next year to around £12,800 in 2028 – meaning it crosses the personal allowance tax threshold.
In the meantime, the surging state pension means that retirees with their own saving income face more and more tax.
The Chancellor said his Autumn Statement would “make work pay”, but in reality the decision to keep a deep freeze on income tax thresholds means hard-earned private pensions savings are being taxed more than ever before.
Around one million people rely on the state pension alone to fund their retirement, the Chancellor said. This means that there are more than 11 million pensioners who have extra income on top, and now face tax bills thanks to “fiscal drag”.
The decision to freeze the personal tax-free allowance at £12,570 until 2028 while bumping the state pension up every year to match soaring inflation and wage growth means that it doesn’t take much of a private pension to get a tax bill in retirement.
The triple lock, which will drive up the state pension by 8.5pc in line with September’s wage growth, will see the new state pension increase by more than £900 a year to £11,500. It means a retired couple can rely on £23,000 a year in retirement, guaranteed by the state.
Analysis for Telegraph Money by pensions consultancy Lane Clark and Peacock shows that 8.5 million people aged 65 and over now pay income tax. This comes as 770,000 more were dragged into paying tax after the triple lock boosted the state pension by 10.1pc in April.
Next April, another 650,000 pensioners could be forced to pay tax on their income thanks to the 8.5pc increase. That’s a total of 9 million out of Britain’s 12.6 million state pensioners.
Fewer than 5 million over-65s paid income tax when the Tories came to power in 2010. Fewer than 3 million did 30 years ago.
The growing tax take means that the triple lock is not a 8.5pc pension pay rise for all. Those with their own retirement fund will surrender more to the taxman
-
I know the Telegraph has a mission, but that's a deeply weird article, even by their standards.
They seem to be telling pensioners to be disgusted that the state pension has gone up by nearly 20% in the past couple of years.
This line in particular:
"The truth (ahem!) is that for millions of pensioners, a large slice of their triple lock pay rise will be eaten up by income tax."
Let's have a think shall we?
The triple lock increase this year in the state pension is about £900.
Not uprating the personal allowance by inflation (which would have upped it by about £1,100) means that anyone with an annual pension of between about £14-50k will be paying about £220 more in income tax than they would be if the allowance had been uprated. Anyone with a pension between about £50-125k per year will pay an extra £440 per year in tax than they would have done.
Now, I don't know about you, but I doubt there are millions of pensioners getting annual pensions above £50k per year who are going to be pushed onto the breadline because they get a £900 handout and lose £400. But then again, I guess I'm not the Telegraph's target audience.
-
I do get the point you make BST but there's the small matter of the actual inflation cost to add onto that £400 you mention. Given the inflation we've seen in the last 12months pensioners too could still be well out of pocket.
-
Agreed, but pensioners ARE getting inflation level rises, in their state pension which is far more than, for example, public sector workers are getting. That's before any increase in private pension payments.
It's the whole tenor of that article that jars. It feels like it is complaining about one of the very good things that the Tories have done for the poorest pensioners, because it means wealthier pensioners not getting a bigger slice of the cake.
-
Apologies, not much bandwidth/intermittent, atm in small town Tas
-
Agreed, but pensioners ARE getting inflation level rises, in their state pension which is far more than, for example, public sector workers are getting. That's before any increase in private pension payments.
It's the whole tenor of that article that jars. It feels like it is complaining about one of the very good things that the Tories have done for the poorest pensioners, because it means wealthier pensioners not getting a bigger slice of the cake.
Entirely agree on that, BST and whilst I am amongst those set to benefit in the way you describe I too find it objectionable.
-
Agreed, but pensioners ARE getting inflation level rises, in their state pension which is far more than, for example, public sector workers are getting. That's before any increase in private pension payments.
It's the whole tenor of that article that jars. It feels like it is complaining about one of the very good things that the Tories have done for the poorest pensioners, because it means wealthier pensioners not getting a bigger slice of the cake.
But its an inflation level rise on a small amount of money, not equitable with a full time job for example.
And increases in private pensions? That's definitely not universal, if anything private pensions have fallen dramatically in the last 12 months or so following from Liz Truss's disastrous attempt at tax cuts. It crippled the private pension sector. Add in inflation and pensioners are not doing very well at all.
-
Imagine this happening to your estate!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/23/revealed-king-charles-secretly-profiting-from-the-assets-of-dead-citizens
-
'A lot of these numbers... are sort of made up' - Paul Johnson, IFS, in his review of the Autumn Statement.
https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/1727353906341282050
It's certainly starting to look that way as people start to drill down into the details that Hunt didn't mention.
The numbers stack up on the assumption that:
1) All Govt spending apart from health, defence and education is set to fall by 4.1% each and every year for the next 5 years.
2) The best part of half a million severely incapacitated people will be moved off that level of welfare.
Aye. Good luck with that.
A cynic might call this a scorched earth policy, leaving those who take over next year with the unpopular job of taking the really hard decisions.
As I was saying.
Here's that we'll known vipers' nest of economically illiterate Marxists...(checks notes)...err...The Economist, saying precisely the same thing about Hunt's plans
https://twitter.com/duncanrobinson/status/1727728938879693284
-
I guess that anyone that bought a house in the 1970s rather than the 50s or 60s was very lucky indeed, unless of course you were able to predict the market.
''Average UK house prices hit a record high in June, making today’s average house price 65 times more expensive than in 1970''
In 1950, the average cost of a new house was around £65,224 in today’s money
In 1960, the average cost of a home was approximately £55,784
At the start of the 1970s the average house price was £4,057
In 1980, the average house price shot up to £20,268
In 1990, it rose again to £58,153
In 2000, the average cost of a home reached £89,597
In 2010, this almost doubled to £170,365
In 2020, the average property in the UK valued at £249,633
And now in June 2022, house prices have reached a record high of £271,613
https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/uk-house-prices-are-65-times-higher-today-than-in-1970/138813/
This of course doesn't take into consideration where wages were over that period.
For the 1st 15years of married life my Mum lived in Pit houses.
She and my stepdad somehow managed to save up to buy their own semi detached 2 bed 1 living room, kitchen and bathroom bungalow on what was known as The Drury Estate behind where the Tally Ho was at Woodlands. After she died I found the attached which might help when looking at those figures quoted
-
In 1975 we bought our 1st house 9 Rotherwood Close Scawsby, a newish build semi 3 beds living room dining room kitchen and bathroom £7800
-
When my nana on my mums side passed away, we, as a family had the opportunity to buy her house on Princess Ave, Stainforth. A pit house she had lived in all her married life. My mum was brought up there. They were pretty much giving it away. Not one of our better financial decisions.
-
When my nana on my mums side passed away, we, as a family had the opportunity to buy her house on Princess Ave, Stainforth. A pit house she had lived in all her married life. My mum was brought up there. They were pretty much giving it away. Not one of our better financial decisions.
Princess Avenue is not a desirable place to live these days