The Next Conservative Budget
Discussion
Willy Nilly said:
The people that receive an inheritance receive a payment tax free that they haven't worked for and often don't deserve.
Nice bit of envy snipped out.Incidentally, who the f
k are you to decide if MY kids are worthy of what money of MINE I leave them? Money I have worked for legitimately and already been taxed on? Fact is, what the f
k has MY money got to do with you, or , even, anyone else for that matter, including a stealing government? Welshbeef said:
Why punish people who have worked hard and saved and made da rides throughout their lives v say someone who has lived a lavish lifestyle but has nothing to pass on.
How does IHT punish those who worked hard and saved all their life?Unless my understanding of IHT is very, very wrong, the hard working person referred to is not around to see IHT paid on their estate,
PurpleMoonlight said:
I don't disagree with that, but why apply it to only some people not all people?
Why not just increase the nil rate band to £500,000 which applies to all people?
I wonder how many people are in that situation though? Why not just increase the nil rate band to £500,000 which applies to all people?
Assets of a mil but no property?
There does seem to be something in the works such that older people can ringfence the proceeds of a house sale if they downsize or go into care.
motco said:
davepoth said:
Market rate rents for council houses occupied by higher rate taxpayers is a good one - I can't wait to hear Labour argue against it.
I do wonder a little whether we can get away with "salami slicing" another 100,000 jobs without losing capability from the civil service.
Given that New Labour 'created' c.900,000 public sector jobs during their period in office, I suspect we can lose 100,000 without noticing the loss.I do wonder a little whether we can get away with "salami slicing" another 100,000 jobs without losing capability from the civil service.
sidicks said:
uknick said:
How does IHT punish those who worked hard and saved all their life?
Unless my understanding of IHT is very, very wrong, the hard working person referred to is not around to see IHT paid on their estate,
I presume you miss the point deliberately. Well done!Unless my understanding of IHT is very, very wrong, the hard working person referred to is not around to see IHT paid on their estate,
That is a big difference.
uknick said:
Welshbeef said:
Why punish people who have worked hard and saved and made da rides throughout their lives v say someone who has lived a lavish lifestyle but has nothing to pass on.
How does IHT punish those who worked hard and saved all their life?Unless my understanding of IHT is very, very wrong, the hard working person referred to is not around to see IHT paid on their estate,
Folks like me, who think their families have more entitlement to my hard earned than some f
kwit government who will simply piss it against the wall, can pass it on.Folks like you, who think the opposite, can hand it over to HMRC. You could even do it while your alive, that should massage your ego.
But rest assured folks like me will make sure, whatever the situation, that our families come first.
sidicks said:
I presume you miss the point deliberately. Well done!
Not at all. I get annoyed people don't post what they actually mean, i.e. it is the estate beneficiaries who suffer IHT. Why not say just say that?When I studied tax some 20 years ago my lecturer always said IHT is only paid by lazy or stupid people as it is a tax that can be completely legally avoided with careful planning. I know things have changed since then and many of the avoidance loopholes have been closed, but it is still quite easy to avoid the tax, if you really want to.
uknick said:
Not at all. I get annoyed people don't post what they actually mean, i.e. it is the estate beneficiaries who suffer IHT. Why not say just say that?
When I studied tax some 20 years ago my lecturer always said IHT is only paid by lazy or stupid people as it is a tax that can be completely legally avoided with careful planning. I know things have changed since then and many of the avoidance loopholes have been closed, but it is still quite easy to avoid the tax, if you really want to.
And the key point here is the wealthy or smart people already do this and will continue to do so - sadly it is those who do not understand it through lack of interest or capability that suffer the tax. When I studied tax some 20 years ago my lecturer always said IHT is only paid by lazy or stupid people as it is a tax that can be completely legally avoided with careful planning. I know things have changed since then and many of the avoidance loopholes have been closed, but it is still quite easy to avoid the tax, if you really want to.
So why would you want the feckless who have somehow got themselves into a position to pass on wealth then have it taken away.
Increase the IHT threshold or scrap entirely that is the way to go.
uknick said:
sidicks said:
I presume you miss the point deliberately. Well done!
Not at all. I get annoyed people don't post what they actually mean, i.e. it is the estate beneficiaries who suffer IHT. Why not say just say that?When I studied tax some 20 years ago my lecturer always said IHT is only paid by lazy or stupid people
Main point is, the stuff has already been taxed. Taxing it again is more than a bit cheeky.
sidicks said:
NicD said:
The point has not been made. IHT is no different to any other tax EXCEPT it is not levied on the taxpayer, but his/her beneficiary.
That is a big difference.
Sorry, I should have said the point being discussed is obvious to almost everyone apart from uknick and you...That is a big difference.
IHT is a tax to raise revenue, along with all the other types of tax. You seem to be saying it is a worse one. For ME, it is a better one, since if (it is a big if, and not part of this debate) the revenue is required by the Government, I would rather it be paid on my death when I won't miss it.
You might take a different view on this point, but you have not expressed such.
In any case, it is merely one of the many sources of funds to run the country, whether further taxing already taxed earnings or not.
I would like to see expenditure reduced by small government but I would not like to see other forms of taxation (of me) increased in order to lower IHT. If they taxed non-doms whether personal or corporate, or other shirkers, then go for it
That is MY opinion.
NicD said:
I get your simple mind, try to think a little more.
IHT is a tax to raise revenue, along with all the other types of tax. You seem to be saying it is a worse one. For ME, it is a better one, since if (it is a big if, and not part of this debate) the revenue is required by the Government, I would rather it be paid on my death when I won't miss it.
You might take a different view on this point, but you have not expressed such.
In any case, it is merely one of the many sources of funds to run the country, whether further taxing already taxed earnings or not.
I would like to see expenditure reduced by small government but I would not like to see other forms of taxation (of me) increased in order to lower IHT. If they taxed non-doms whether personal or corporate, or other shirkers, then go for it
That is MY opinion.
A tax that targets assets which have been purchased from income which has already been taxed is unjust. Worse if it encourages people to waste money and therefore fall back on state support rather than save to support yourself and your family.IHT is a tax to raise revenue, along with all the other types of tax. You seem to be saying it is a worse one. For ME, it is a better one, since if (it is a big if, and not part of this debate) the revenue is required by the Government, I would rather it be paid on my death when I won't miss it.
You might take a different view on this point, but you have not expressed such.
In any case, it is merely one of the many sources of funds to run the country, whether further taxing already taxed earnings or not.
I would like to see expenditure reduced by small government but I would not like to see other forms of taxation (of me) increased in order to lower IHT. If they taxed non-doms whether personal or corporate, or other shirkers, then go for it
That is MY opinion.
Non-doms are already heavily taxed. Maybe your 'simple mind' needs to do a bit more to understand the topic you are discussing?
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 5th July 16:59
NicD said:
Is that your best, you do know how discussions work, right? Its not just blather.
You started off with an insult than make a particular stupid statement about non-doms not being taxed. I repeat my previous comment - if you are going to participate in a 'discussion', it would be helpful if you keep to topics you actually understand (at however a simplistic level)!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff