Dunno how it's worked out tbh, but it seemed to paint anyone even vaguely right-leaning as some king of tea party nut, which is unfair.
Shows Cameron will stand up to them.
UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
Still, if someone's inheriting a million pound house it's just difficult to care that they have to pay some tax on it.
Wanting to give families in need houses is great and we all want that, but what's the single woman going to do when she looks around and can't find a reasonably priced 1 bedroom flat? I know I'm struggling, I'd basically need be earning close to £20 an hour to afford one around here.
Makes me more worried about the mentality of most of the party to be honest.
Do you live in Knightsbridge?
Oxford. It's crazy man, if you want a one bedroom flat you either have to look at every estate agent everyday for years and fight hundreds of people when a c.£500pm one turns up or pay somewhere between £700-1100. And everything else is also expensive in Oxford, because businesses get charged through the nose for their rent too. It's vicious. The only people making lots of money are landlords. There's professionals in what you'd think are reasonably well paid jobs who have to share houses, sometimes with strangers, well into their 30s.
Last edited:
Because we still don't live in an equal, meritocratic society, and your children will benefit massively from the wealth you leave behind for them. Sharing that wealth amongst those without is clearly fair.
The children of rich parents already have a huge leg up through better education, healthcare, housing, experiences and connections... and they moan about having to pay some tax on the huge bung of cash and assets they get when their parents die. How many privileges and advantages to they want? It's obscene.
Forgot you live in Oxford. Imagine it's London-esque. We couldn't get onto the property ladder til mid-30s, so I lined landlords' pockets for a decade or so too.
You both seem to be against social mobility though. My wife and I are both working class but have done ok for ourselves through hard work.
Why should my kids be taxed back into that?
Inheritance Tax is a key component of social mobility by trying to lessen inherited advantage and let people compete on a more equal footing with their peers.
Wealth helps to accumulate more wealth, so without something to redress the balance, the rich get richer from generation to generation.
Indeed... Its not even the fpc still is it... Certainly not just the three exams it was back in my day
... But you'll be dead Jippy. And 'back into that'? Your posh, West London kids will (hopefully) be in the middle of their working lives, already hugely advantaged by their parents social standing with good jobs, and will pay back a small part of the fortune you're leaving them behind.
Someone said it earlier, but it's just about the most re-distributive tax there is. Imagine at your age, inheriting a £700k property you've done nothing to deserve, after already benefiting from your parents' wealth to gain a better education and life. It makes perfect sense that some of that money should go back to the less well off.
Yeah it's CF2 and all that lot these days. Managed to avoid it and the IMC.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/danielle-ismay-suicide-tragic-woman-5505773[/QUOTE]
That is perhaps the worst piece of 'journalism' I have ever seen.
That is perhaps the worst piece of 'journalism' I have ever seen.
You argue your point very well tbf. It irks me that so much of the tax take is wasted. Plus it's hard marrying the helping others argument with taxing the feck out of anyone that does ok for themself. The redistributive/punishing line is skewed in this country for me.
I doubt my kids will be posh somehow. My wife's family home didn't have a flushing toilet til 14 years ago ffs. If I could allocate what I'd pay in IHT to charities of my choice, I'd accept that much more readily.
I got out of that game a long time ago
Glad I did as well... Pretty boring work but decent enough money when I was younger
You guys loosely say "some tax", but its actually 40% of everything over £325k.
Even though I agree with it I think the threshhold is well low. It has been going up progressively every year but has now stalled since 2009. Its less then the average house prices in SE England and about 60% of the average house prices in London. If it stays the same it would mean that virtually everyone inherting a house in London will pay tax on it and that's not right.
Even though I agree with it I think the threshhold is well low. It has been going up progressively every year but has now stalled since 2009. Its less then the average house prices in SE England and about 60% of the average house prices in London. If it stays the same it would mean that virtually everyone inherting a house in London will pay tax on it and that's not right.
When I was at Investment Week they offered us cash incentives to do the fpc. Was only £500 each but I started there on £12.5k...The idea was journos with qualifications would be taken more seriously by industry. fecking boring doing them though.
Yep it's obviously not kept pace with house price inflation. I've got a small/medium-sized two bed flat with a tiny garden and am above that threshold. It's hardly a fecking mansion.
That's more a symptom of out of control house price inflation than an unreasonably low threshold but we all know there won't be any policies to address that. In most cases its also passed between spouses so its 650k.
I'm still not sure it changes anything however, the focus is on those gaining from the inheritance and in this case the inflation just means their gains are greater. It would go against its purpose if it tracked the house price index surely?
I'm not saying it should track HPI but that it should increase year on year as it did in the past to at least match overall infaltion. Tories froze it in 2010 to fill up the coffers and it hasn't gone up since. They should have changed it to reflect the income taxation IMO rather than keep a low threshhold but you'd expect them to take more from the poor.
I mentioned the houses as that will genrally be the main form of inheritence.
What do you mean with being passed between spouses?
Labour going heavy on the fiscal responsibility angle with the new manifesto launch - http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-manifesto-labour-party-fiscal-responsibility
You can write what they know about fiscal responsibility on the back of a postage stamp.
And yet it was Osborne today who failed a full 20 times to answer where the £8bn for the NHS was going to come from. And they're also giving £1bn away to a select few with inheritance tax cuts.
Flipside is how much did Labour say they were going to raise from the non-dom ban?
They're all shite and will say anything.
Few hundred million I think? They're weren't citing it as a funding source, it was more something to get the tories to look shit for defending.
Balls said c£1bn after previously saying it would lose money. It's late though...
Dont forget pomising to completely eliminate the budget deficit by 2015 and then not even halting it
To be fair to Osborne he never studied economics so it's only natural that he's going to be fecking shite with numbers.
In what way has the deficit not been halted?
A select few?
This is being paid for by those earning over £150k - a group of people that Labour has spent the last 5 years mistakenly calling "millionaires" and for whom they've been decrying tax cuts (after promising them heftier ones themselves of course).
As far as I'm aware the surviving spouse receives the deceased allowance if unused, obviously not everyone is in that situation.
Taxing someone with a 325k property does sound ludicrous and its an easy argument to make that its unfair. Taxing someone inheriting that amount though? As Silva sais its hard t up feel sorry for them
Yes, a select few. The IFS has said the changes will only affect a small number, who are by and large wealthy. If you think that's a priority at a time when services are still being cut good on you, but not many in the country will agree.
As much as humanly possible! In all seriousness, I find this kind of rhetoric quite galling, what right does the government have to this money? Anyone successful has already paid an obscene amount in taxes on those earnings to begin with and you want to tax it again? Why shouldn't their reward for entrepreneurial spirit and hard work be passed on to their children, it's their money to use as they wish. You can't just constantly tap up wealth creators to finance your wasteful government initiatives. This is the problem with socialism; eventually you run out of other people's money.
After having read a few summaries of Labour's manifesto (no links to it are yet available), it would appear that departmental cuts and tax rises would be a theme of their time in office. The NHS and Education are afforded a degree of protected status, but after that...
Now they are proposing to close a loophole that presently allows hedge funds to avoid tax, with the proceeds of which making up a chunk of new health spending; but does this not rather assume that those same companies will decline the opportunity of avoiding tax in other countries? I'd also have doubts over their projections for the MT, therefore the extent to which this money actually materialises ahs to be open to question. It could be the Government's own PPI. lol
Now they are proposing to close a loophole that presently allows hedge funds to avoid tax, with the proceeds of which making up a chunk of new health spending; but does this not rather assume that those same companies will decline the opportunity of avoiding tax in other countries? I'd also have doubts over their projections for the MT, therefore the extent to which this money actually materialises ahs to be open to question. It could be the Government's own PPI. lol
Last edited:
Rate of return is greater than inflation. What right do the kids of those hard workers have to accumulate wealth for no other reason than popping out of the right vagina?
Do you believe that children of richer people don't have a hugely significant advantage over their peers in modern society? Do you think that's fair? Do you believe in a genuinely meritocratic society?
An inheritance tax is a way to (only somewhat partially) offset the way that wealth breeds inequality, and in that respect it's barely a dip in the ocean. The suggestion we live in a socialist country is
What right has government to interfere with the lawful dispensing of goods by an individual(s)? In all likelihood these will already have been taxed according to their value through other channels.
As others have mentioned the geographical disparity is farcical, provided that you live in the right part of the country (typically with a lower cost of living) bequeathing any assets is little trouble at all. @Jippy put forward the possibility of charitable donations as an alternative, certainly people would have more confidence in that form of disposal than than government.
The government should work for everyone not just the top percentile which just keeps getting richer. Perhaps if successive governments hadn't completely fecked up housing we wouldn't be having this debate. But they did, and as houses in the SE are now worth loads it's only fair that the people inheriting them pay a fair share to keep things ticking. I've got no government with people giving their money to charity.
Impressive that you managed to include all those cliches in one short post.
I've already explained my position, but in brief: you can pass your money and assets onto your children but only after they pay some tax on this unearned income to help fund the society we all benefit from.