Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
They wouldn't actually do this, surely?
so no :)
to a horrendously poor one in the matter of minutes.... seriously would you of believed Labour would be winning the popularity contest at this stage, this time last year?
at the moment given the actual chances of them winning a snap election appear to be receding by the week. I think they might be announcing an end to weather sometime this week.
in terms of looking after those with a lot of money?
(assuming parents don't suddenly die) is to start giving your kids money before you die, in ISAs and such
He's the funniest person on the boards by about ten miles.
But obviously, because we all disagree with his politics, he's a total wanker.
That's all, my sweet.
a referendum on the EU? Must have missed that one. Perhaps you'd care to clarify?
but the figures are a little off
why not raise the threshold to 500 or 600,000 instead of a million?
Much better idea.
that dead people are no longer going to be motivated to generate wealth. Taxing dead people doesn't change anything, except how much cash their heirs get for nothing. Recieving money for nothing doesn't motivate you to work harder. Besides, you'd still inherit plenty of case if your dead parents had owned a £150,000 house.
Why not do a census of inheritances and set the limit at the mean. That way we define who is poor and who is rich and tax accordingly.
that paying tax is pointless?
But aside from taking what you said out of context, I doubt many people's motivation for working is to leave a big fat inheritance. It's much better that the state takes some of that money.
Possibly we could suggest graduating it like income tax? Don#'t just bring it in at a brutal 40%, say 100,000 tax free, 15% of the next 300,000 and then 40% of anything over 400,000.
care that much about their children they'd give money to them when they are alive...
"If you tax the hell out of them, they may well be less inclined to work hard when they are alive"
what if all the extra work they do is discounted by the reduced work done by their heirs?
what's that? the sound of unintended consequences?!
choosing to focus on the proposed 25,000 flat rate tax on those with non-domiciled tax status.
Funny how the treasury plucked 'but, there are only 15,000 of them who earn enough to make it worthwhile' out of the air...almost as if the Labour spin machine had started with the answer that they wanted to give and worked backwards from there.....hmm.......
They'll wait and see how the inheritance tax issue plays out in the press, doubtless they're telephone polling and focus grouping like mad as we speak.
If they think it'd be popular with the public they'll launch a copycat plea just before the election and then quietly shelve it just after the election (assuming Labour victory which seems likely at the moment).
Especially the house-buying thing.
I'd like to see them get in, in a snap election.
I would quite like a home, but I could still do without a right-lurching party in control :| Maybe I'll vote green or something.
funded by a tax on non-domiciled tax-dodgers is a move in the right direction I think. For entirely selfish reasons in that I live in london and want to be able to afford a house before I'm 35.
It only cuts the costs by something like 1% though, which isn't much - equivalent to knocking things back by a couple of months' inflation / interest. Better would be a significant commitment to building new houses in the london area, and perhaps more economic disincentives to penalize buy-to-rent landlords and non-domiciled property investors
And I think inheritance tax should stay reasonably high - if you want to hang on to your parents house after you die, you can easily (shock horror) remortgage it in part to pay the tax bill. You're still getting a massive amount of home equity for free, and could spread the tax bill out over many years.
I mean. not you!
even allowed to inherit.
So you have to take out massive loans to pay it.
should be an administratively better tax - it's not a case for abolishing it.
out of the Tory conference so far.
There is so much wrong with inheritance tax that I barely know where to start.
that your parents work incredibly hard their whole lives, already have been taxed on every penny of their money and then instead of being able to inherit their house, you have to sell it and pay a shit load of money in tax again. I don't want my parents' money but I sure as hell don't want them to get it either!
but I don't have a problem with being lazy, I work 60-hour weeks and have done for years. I stand by what I said though, it's sad that family homes are sold to pay the tax man. Whether or not it's technically bad or not, I don't really care.
I must be over-sensitive and tired from those 60 hour weeks ;o)
transactions are taxed. if you inherit, you are receiving that money for the first time so to talk about being taxed 'again' is intellectually dishonest.
It's also a total fallacy that it's taxing someone's lifetime of hardwork. If someone bought a house years ago relatively cheaply and it has increased exponentially in value then that is unearned income.
If my dad gave me a job, my pay would be taxed. How is that different to him giving me a house?
Taxation is about a complex set of trade-offs. Trying to exploit it for political ends with overly-simplistic and somewhat flawed emotional arguments isn't going to buy anybody any intellectual credibility.
I agree that the way it's structured could well be improved, but I think it is a perfectly fine and morally justifyable way to tax people.
Personally I think:
- It should be taxed in the same way as any other unearned income, and should be graduated in tax bands in the same kind of way
- It should apply to everyone
- It should be administrated in a way which gives people (especially minors whose parents die and those without access to other funds) every opportunity to avoid having to sell a family home. Whether by allowing them to pay tax in installments, or making it easier to borrow money against the assets they inherit.
Apparently Inheritance Tax is currently forecast to impact the richest 6% of individuals, not exactly the hard working lower middle classes.
I think that rather than IHT being a dis-incentive towards hard work, it is an incentive towards a more equal society both by encouraging philanthropy (as in 'you can't take it with you') and ideally in cutting child poverty.
There is a case to be made for the banding of any tax to be amended with the times, but the silver spoon Tory front bench hysteria about 'fairness' is laughable.