The Next Conservative Budget

[glazbagun]

IIRC Andrew Carnegie was a proponent of 100% IHT, Though he felt it should be offset against income tax so you can earn fkloads, but have to pump it back into the economy through the purchase of goods and services unless you want to leave it all to HMG.

Of course I'm sure trust funds would be exempt!

[Murph7355]

supersingle said:

...Yet, taxes on earned income are amongst the highest of any taxes. Marginal tax rates can approach and exceed 100% when you consider withdrawal of benefits. It's almost as if the tax and benefits system is designed to keep the poor in their place...

With something like 30% of income taxes paid by the top 1% earners, I'm not really sure where you'd expect to be squeezed.

I do not feel for one moment that other people inheriting large amounts of money impacted my ability to better my position (to your meritocracy point). OK, so I had to work harder than a will beneficiary might have done...but so what? That applies to people in all sorts of circumstances (and I equally know there are others far harder working than me for less gain).

Being able to leave money to successors without the government taking even more of it to waste should not be something that has to be argued over. And some of the argument on here for 100% IHT makes me worry about the way many in this country might think!

Fortunately there are plenty of ways to minimise any potential for IHT. So there's an argument that people should educate themselves and kill IHT anyway.

[DJRC]

edh said:

Gargamel said:

Should the Government fund Sports or the Arts ?

This is the fundamental reason why we have a bloated government, and too high taxation. Tax us less and we can pay for our own Sports and theatre tickets thanks.

I think the idea is that Tax Credits will start to apply at a lower level - say no one on £26,000 or more gets a TC. This won't affect those who earn below the Income tax threshold.

Yes

Participation rates in sports are falling fastest among the poor. Closing swimming pools and football pitches isn't going to help.

Let's see who the TC cuts affect - and see if they fall mainly on "hard working families who do the right thing" (I hate those sorts of phrases)

ALL Treasury dealings in the UK affect the richest 40% of tax payers the most and invariably make them worse off.

Now before anyone launches into some kind of political polemic, consider this notion; Britain uniquely amongst the European populations devised a tax system that is focused on taxing the rich not the poor and the mechanism it chose to do this was by "asking" the richest to pay tax, not taking as much as possible from the mass of society.

The principle and process is enshrined in the Magna Carta of 1216 (NOT 1215!). It has remained to be the bedrock of tax policy in England and thenceforth Wales, Scotland etc ever since. It has been an astoundingly successful policy ever since.

For those determined to make a left/right political point - the above is a historian's perspective, not a political one.

[RAFsmoggy]

http://www.poverty.ac.uk/editorial/uk-living-stand...

[oyster]

Getragdogleg said:

Funny how those who cry about equality want to bring everyone down to their level, I would rather everyone was up at mine.

I'm inclined to agree with you in general, and with regards to income tax and so on I very much agree.

But IHT IS different, because the beneficiary hasn't done the hard work.


So how do you propose bringing everyone up to your level if you received a big inheritance and someone else received nothing? They have to work hard and you don't.

Now I'm not advocating 100% IHT, that is just silly. But I would be in favour of IHT with a miuch lower allowance - say £50k, whilst maintaining the rate at around 40%.

[CaptainSlow]

oyster said:

But IHT IS different, because the beneficiary hasn't done the hard work.

Really, haven't they? That's a very simplified view on life.

And even if they haven't, why should someone sell their home to fund a tax bill? What incentive is there for anybody to work hard to provide a better life for themselves and their family?

Socialist agendas driven by envy always ready to take from others.

[DJRC]

oyster said:

Getragdogleg said:

Funny how those who cry about equality want to bring everyone down to their level, I would rather everyone was up at mine.

I'm inclined to agree with you in general, and with regards to income tax and so on I very much agree.

But IHT IS different, because the beneficiary hasn't done the hard work.


So how do you propose bringing everyone up to your level if you received a big inheritance and someone else received nothing? They have to work hard and you don't.

Now I'm not advocating 100% IHT, that is just silly. But I would be in favour of IHT with a miuch lower allowance - say £50k, whilst maintaining the rate at around 40%.

Come again?

You want to set an IHT at £50k and then tax everything over that at 40%...have I read you right?

[iphonedyou]

oyster said:

So how do you propose bringing everyone up to your level if you received a big inheritance and someone else received nothing? They have to work hard and you don't.

Ah. So your preferred solution is just to bring everybody else down a peg or two.

Well isn't that lovely.

Notwithstanding, of course, the ridiculous assertion that those receiving an inheritance don't have to work hard, and the obvious inference one is led to draw that they therefore don't.

Edited by iphonedyou on Tuesday 7th July 12:19

[sugerbear]

dazwalsh said:

god help us all if sugerbear ever gets into power, 100% IHT, crazy fool!

I never said I agreed with 100% IHT.

What I said in a roundabout way was that assets that are inherited are not necessarily made the best use of and deprive others of potential opportunities. They also pool the wealth into a small % of the population that may not be the be the best placed to exploit them.

Anyone that dies old with considerable assets and poor (in terms of wealth) offspring isn't planning very well.

BTW, I would be all for 100% IHT if it meant my tax bill was halved during my lifetime.

[supersingle]

iphonedyou said:

oyster said:

So how do you propose bringing everyone up to your level if you received a big inheritance and someone else received nothing? They have to work hard and you don't.

Ah. So your preferred solution is just to bring everybody else down a peg or two.

Well isn't that lovely.

Notwithstanding, of course, the ridiculous assertion that those receiving an inheritance don't have to work hard, and the obvious inference one is led to draw that they therefore don't.

Edited by iphonedyou on Tuesday 7th July 12:19

I work hard to earn a living. I pay lots of tax for the privilege.

One day (if I live long enough) I'll inherit a good sum, enough to pay my house off. I won't have lifted a finger to receive that cash. It'll be entirely unearnt, yet it'll be taxed at a much lower rate than my earnings.

In a meritocracy we should be rewarding effort and productivity. We are failing to do that at present. Taxes on capital gains, inheritances, rents etc are much lower than on earnt income. I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to provide for their children but failing to tax inheritance at all (as some on here are advocating) will have negative effects on society as a whole.

[CaptainSlow]

supersingle said:

It'll be entirely unearnt, yet it'll be taxed at a much lower rate than my earnings.

It's been taxed once already.

[55palfers]

CaptainSlow said:

supersingle said:

It'll be entirely unearnt, yet it'll be taxed at a much lower rate than my earnings.

It's been taxed once already.

...and a lot of those houses will have been bought when the mortgage rate was 10% and above

[oyster]

iphonedyou said:

oyster said:

So how do you propose bringing everyone up to your level if you received a big inheritance and someone else received nothing? They have to work hard and you don't.

Ah. So your preferred solution is just to bring everybody else down a peg or two.

Well isn't that lovely.

Notwithstanding, of course, the ridiculous assertion that those receiving an inheritance don't have to work hard, and the obvious inference one is led to draw that they therefore don't.

Edited by iphonedyou on Tuesday 7th July 12:19

For a minute please put aside what I might infer or assert, and answer my question.

As I've said before, I'm not in favour of bringing people down a peg. I'm just intrigued how you give other people a leg up, or even ensure they start with a level playing field.

[edh]

CaptainSlow said:

supersingle said:

It'll be entirely unearnt, yet it'll be taxed at a much lower rate than my earnings.

It's been taxed once already.

No it hasn't - or at least a large proportion of property value won't have been.

[supersingle]

CaptainSlow said:

supersingle said:

It'll be entirely unearnt, yet it'll be taxed at a much lower rate than my earnings.

It's been taxed once already.

Has it?

Without IHT wealth can be passed down the generations in perpetuity. Of course once you have capital it becomes easier to accuire more. You wind up with very few people controlling most of the wealth and very little incentive for them to make efficient use of their capital.

[thismonkeyhere]

Zoobeef said:

I just hope my parents spend it all ad enjoy themselves before they go.

Well, I echo your sentiment, but only for my parents' comfort and happiness. They'll pay monstrous tax on everything they spend anyway, so same difference really.

[thismonkeyhere]

alock said:

It might sound harsh, but spending money to help the poor live longer does not make good economic sense

Short term NHS costs for an unhealthy population are dwarfed by long term care and pension costs of a healthy but ageing population.

We should thank smokers and the obese, tbh. They might cost the NHS marginally more when living, but they have a tendency to die younger and avoid drawing a pension and being a real burden in old age.

[Guybrush]

iphonedyou said:

oyster said:

So how do you propose bringing everyone up to your level if you received a big inheritance and someone else received nothing? They have to work hard and you don't.

Ah. So your preferred solution is just to bring everybody else down a peg or two.

Well isn't that lovely.

Notwithstanding, of course, the ridiculous assertion that those receiving an inheritance don't have to work hard, and the obvious inference one is led to draw that they therefore don't.

Edited by iphonedyou on Tuesday 7th July 12:19

Plus, if people knew that all they worked for would eventually be taken away (and probably wasted), would they bother to work much in the first place?

[8Ace]

God bless Allah for this, if it's included. The current situation drives me nuts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33421315

[thismonkeyhere]

8Ace said:

God bless Allah for this, if it's included. The current situation drives me nuts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33421315

Why so?