The Next Conservative Budget

[Negative Creep]

Axionknight said:

As a curious tid bit, Winston Churchill was all for it in his early days, he called for the sterilisation of "tramps and ne'er do wells" I believe.

Forced labour camps too.

He'd fit in pretty well in this forum

[Esseesse]

Timmy40 said:

Boydie88 said:

Some talk on the radio this morning motorists are going to be hit hard with fuel and VED rises :/

There's been a lot of spin around diesel cars being the new evil, I imagine that was to soften us up for higher taxes/duty on diesel, offset with a 'generous incentive' to buy an electric car ( which will be fiscally a tiny give away ), and the BBC Graduan Green Blob will lap it up too.

Hmmm, maybe this could be a good excuse reason to sell the 530d for a 740i. I do next to no miles.

[Gargamel]

TurboHatchback said:

Inheritance is one area I disagree with the Conservative ideology, I would be all for 100% inheritance tax and hugely reduced income tax to compensate. Inheritance coupled with property prices is one of the main drivers of inequality, rich families stay rich and get richer while those born poor will never attain true wealth or own their own homes so will never pass anything on so the cycle continues.

Obviously my viewpoint is biased as I won't inherit a penny but from an academic standpoint it would be much fairer for society in general to have penal rates of inheritance tax and use the resulting revenue to cut taxes on work, hugely raise the income tax threshold etc to reward achievement rather than just being born rich. I couldn't care less what happens to my wealth when I die but having most of my income taken as tax while I'm alive is displeasing.

Pretty much everything else (rumoured) in the budget sounds good to me. Bring on the benefit cuts .

So if I become rich enough to buy an estate in the country with a few acres, then my son becomes the farmer on that estate, having been born there - I have to make him homeless and fire him from the job on the basis of your 100% tax?

Far better to scrap the whole thing, it is a double tax anyway. Essentially I am taxed on accumulating wealth all through my life, and then you want what is left over at the end.

Also - pretty sure you can start with nothing and make a fortune still...

[Zoobeef]

TurboHatchback said:

Inheritance is one area I disagree with the Conservative ideology, I would be all for 100% inheritance tax and hugely reduced income tax to compensate. Inheritance coupled with property prices is one of the main drivers of inequality, rich families stay rich and get richer while those born poor will never attain true wealth or own their own homes so will never pass anything on so the cycle continues.

Obviously my viewpoint is biased as I won't inherit a penny but from an academic standpoint it would be much fairer for society in general to have penal rates of inheritance tax and use the resulting revenue to cut taxes on work, hugely raise the income tax threshold etc to reward achievement rather than just being born rich. I couldn't care less what happens to my wealth when I die but having most of my income taken as tax while I'm alive is displeasing.

Pretty much everything else (rumoured) in the budget sounds good to me. Bring on the benefit cuts .

Those born poor will never own their own homes? Bullst. How did I buy mine? Magic and fairy dust.

[RAFsmoggy]

[quote=Cheese Mechanic

Fact is, what the fk has MY money got to do with you, or , even, anyone else for that matter, including a stealing government?
[/quote]
but you feel its OK to steal from all the licence payers while you freeload watching iPlayer ...what a tosser of the highest order

[TurboHatchback]

Zoobeef said:

Those born poor will never own their own homes? Bullst. How did I buy mine? Magic and fairy dust.

I'm not saying it's completely impossible for anyone just rather unlikely for most. If you've bought a decent house without a scrap of inheritance I would guess you either A: bought it some time ago before prices were so stupid, B: Earn way above the average wage, C: Live in a cheap area, D: Jointly purchased it with someone else.

As a single person with a professional job it would take me 20yrs to save up the deposit on a basic house where I live by which time the price will have gone up by more than I've saved, thus making it a target moving away faster than I can catch up. All the people I know who have managed to buy houses have done so through loans/grants from the bank of mum and dad.

[Zoobeef]

TurboHatchback said:

I'm not saying it's completely impossible for anyone just rather unlikely for most. If you've bought a decent house without a scrap of inheritance I would guess you either A: bought it some time ago before prices were so stupid, B: Earn way above the average wage, C: Live in a cheap area, D: Jointly purchased it with someone else.

As a single person with a professional job it would take me 20yrs to save up the deposit on a basic house where I live by which time the price will have gone up by more than I've saved, thus making it a target moving away faster than I can catch up. All the people I know who have managed to buy houses have done so through loans/grants from the bank of mum and dad.

I'm in the forces (poor people can join) I bought my house in 2012. Bought on my own without having to sell the Noble in a nice area just outside Retford. 3 bed semi with large garage and conservatory for £114k. I was on £29k a year at the time.

[sugerbear]

Gargamel said:

TurboHatchback said:

Inheritance is one area I disagree with the Conservative ideology, I would be all for 100% inheritance tax and hugely reduced income tax to compensate. Inheritance coupled with property prices is one of the main drivers of inequality, rich families stay rich and get richer while those born poor will never attain true wealth or own their own homes so will never pass anything on so the cycle continues.

Obviously my viewpoint is biased as I won't inherit a penny but from an academic standpoint it would be much fairer for society in general to have penal rates of inheritance tax and use the resulting revenue to cut taxes on work, hugely raise the income tax threshold etc to reward achievement rather than just being born rich. I couldn't care less what happens to my wealth when I die but having most of my income taken as tax while I'm alive is displeasing.

Pretty much everything else (rumoured) in the budget sounds good to me. Bring on the benefit cuts .

So if I become rich enough to buy an estate in the country with a few acres, then my son becomes the farmer on that estate, having been born there - I have to make him homeless and fire him from the job on the basis of your 100% tax?

Far better to scrap the whole thing, it is a double tax anyway. Essentially I am taxed on accumulating wealth all through my life, and then you want what is left over at the end.

Also - pretty sure you can start with nothing and make a fortune still...

If you son is any good at farming then the new owner will keep him on. If the market is really working then it should be ruthless and that ultimately means improving efficiency. The capital invested should be working hard rather than being used to allow a second rate farmer to bimble along because his parents happened to have a good business brain.

(And you would have given away most of your wealth to your offspring before you pop your proverbial allowing said offspring to buy their own farm or setup their own business).

[Justayellowbadge]

sugerbear said:

If you son is any good at farming then the new owner will keep him on.

You spend your life building up a business, on your death the gov't assumes control, sells it, and if you're lucky, givers your children a job working there?

You are advocating this?

States that have tried that approach generally end up slaughtering great swathes of their populations.

The remainder starve.

[dazwalsh]

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

[TurboHatchback]

Zoobeef said:

TurboHatchback said:

I'm not saying it's completely impossible for anyone just rather unlikely for most. If you've bought a decent house without a scrap of inheritance I would guess you either A: bought it some time ago before prices were so stupid, B: Earn way above the average wage, C: Live in a cheap area, D: Jointly purchased it with someone else.

As a single person with a professional job it would take me 20yrs to save up the deposit on a basic house where I live by which time the price will have gone up by more than I've saved, thus making it a target moving away faster than I can catch up. All the people I know who have managed to buy houses have done so through loans/grants from the bank of mum and dad.

I'm in the forces (poor people can join) I bought my house in 2012. Bought on my own without having to sell the Noble in a nice area just outside Retford. 3 bed semi with large garage and conservatory for £114k. I was on £29k a year at the time.

That'll be why then, £114k won't even buy you a 1-bed flat where I live (or anywhere nearby). I agree that most people could manage that sort of price but houses like yours would start at £250k down south.

[Gargamel]

dazwalsh said:

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

The state appointed representive will arrive at your dying mothers bedside waiting to prise her wedding bands from her cold stiff fingers the moment she passes.



(Could only be a socialist policy, even the evil Tories draw a line somewhere)

[edh]

You could abolish IHT tomorrow and it would have no effect on the majority of UK citizens. In 2013/14 it was paid on only 3% of estates. It raises relatively small amounts. Land Value Tax would do a much better job in capturing the unearned income from property price rises.

[MG CHRIS]

TurboHatchback said:

Zoobeef said:

TurboHatchback said:

I'm not saying it's completely impossible for anyone just rather unlikely for most. If you've bought a decent house without a scrap of inheritance I would guess you either A: bought it some time ago before prices were so stupid, B: Earn way above the average wage, C: Live in a cheap area, D: Jointly purchased it with someone else.

As a single person with a professional job it would take me 20yrs to save up the deposit on a basic house where I live by which time the price will have gone up by more than I've saved, thus making it a target moving away faster than I can catch up. All the people I know who have managed to buy houses have done so through loans/grants from the bank of mum and dad.

I'm in the forces (poor people can join) I bought my house in 2012. Bought on my own without having to sell the Noble in a nice area just outside Retford. 3 bed semi with large garage and conservatory for £114k. I was on £29k a year at the time.

That'll be why then, £114k won't even buy you a 1-bed flat where I live (or anywhere nearby). I agree that most people could manage that sort of price but houses like yours would start at £250k down south.

I live down south but you can buy and my mate is a prime example of this a 3 bed house needing a bit of work for a bit over 60k hes 22 works for british gas and his partner and wife to be is a trained paramedic easy 60k plus going into the household.

See not everywhere down south is stupid expensive oh and if you want to know where its south wales. If people got out of the thinking that to earn any money in this country you need to live in the south east there be less demand on housing in that area making it less.

Saying that im happy to live in wales with a good standard of living specially being 22 myself and would like for house prices to stay at similar prices to what it is now so yea keep on living in south east means lower cost for us.

[Rovinghawk]

TurboHatchback said:

That'll be why then, £114k won't even buy you a 1-bed flat where I live (or anywhere nearby). I agree that most people could manage that sort of price but houses like yours would start at £250k down south.

I know this is a bit radical, but:

Why not have a system where people buy the kind of place they can afford rather than whingeing about the prices of places they can't afford? As a by-product, the southeast might get a bit less overcrowded & some of the more insane prices might moderate slightly.

I have lots of decent houses, all in the £90-130k bracket.

[MG CHRIS]

Rovinghawk said:

TurboHatchback said:

That'll be why then, £114k won't even buy you a 1-bed flat where I live (or anywhere nearby). I agree that most people could manage that sort of price but houses like yours would start at £250k down south.

I know this is a bit radical, but:

Why not have a system where people buy the kind of place they can afford rather than whingeing about the prices of places they can't afford? As a by-product, the southeast might get a bit less overcrowded & some of the more insane prices might moderate slightly.

I have lots of decent houses, all in the £90-130k bracket.

This someone gets it. Never understound the idea that you cant afford a place in that area you either do one of 2 things rent a place which is cheaper or move to an area that is cheaper. Changing jobs may be required but if a house is 100k cheaper in one area to another a change of job for less money means you can have your own home and still be better off.

[Welshbeef]

This 100% IHT is interesting.

Basically no one knows when their time is so really what everyone needs to do is spend everything they have and live hand to mouth as if your run over by a bus tomorrow your wife who lets say is a stay at home mum bringing up your children would suddenly have to go to work lose half the house and pay a fortune for childcare.

What about spousal pension pots? A family unit elect one to work hard salary wise while the other day earns nothing but fully supports the worker to enable that success. So then the non worker on his/her death gets no spousal pension as its 100% IHT.

If you hate Poll tax and the elimination of the spare bedroom allowance (bedroom tax though it's not a tax ..) how on earth can you support 100% IHT ? I'm guessing your thinking all those with houses grr they don't deserve it...

[Getragdogleg]

I find it hard to understand the bitter envy that leads to people even thinking that any form of death tax is ok.

I can only suppose the short version of the thought process is "I have fk all, everyone should have fk all" or "I don't have a house of my own, no-one should have a house of their own"

Pretty sure if the advocates of the 100% tax were in a position to have to pay it they would be singing a different song.

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

[Murph7355]

Getragdogleg said:

...
Pretty sure if the advocates of the 100% tax were in a position to have to pay it they would be singing a different song.....

Like many socialist taxes the proponents would would be avoiding it like the plague...

[supersingle]

Large inheritances certainly undermine a meritocracy. I'm not sure about a 100℅ inheritance tax rate but it seems sensible to tax it at a level that reduces the chances of the country being ruled by entrenched generational wealth.

Remember that the only possible route out of poverty for most folk is work and self improvement. 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...