Thanks for your summary although as you readily say, it is filtered through your lens, but nevertheless it is a good read, and has a sense of authority. I am also looking forward to this 'manifesto' week, and further analysis, and I wonder if the UKIP version will be the 'Lepoint' of manifestos.
I'd have thought it'll be the Harry CrippsRedknapp of manifestos....
According to the IFS, 90% of estates are already under the inheritance tax threshhold (http://election2015.ifs.org.uk/article/conservatives-proposed-cut-to-inheritance-tax-on-main-homes), and so the proposed changes will disproportionately benefit those at the top of the income distribution. It may also have unintended consequences, in that it may discourage pensioners from downsizing to a property that's more appropriate to their needs, because the cash sum they'll be left with would be taxable if left as part of their estate but the house wouldn't be.
It might be good politics, but it's a stupid idea.
Thanks @aliwibble I read the article, and apologies if I am taking the thread away from the general topic, but inheritance tax is something I feel strongly about.
From what I understand, a beneficiary (non spouse) is entitled to receive an inheritance taxed at 0% up to the first £325,000. Anything above that is taxed at 40%?
This is my basic understanding, but in that article it mentions individual reliefs and the fact that only 90% of estates in this country are hit. Surely there should be more estates in this country that are over the £325k threshold, especially given the rise in property prices.
I think I'm being too simplistic here. Could someone offer any insight?
I intend to vote labour this time around, for reasons I have typed elsewhere .. however, hearing and watching Miliband I am increasingly struck by the comment made by the old ham actor: 'when I am on stage, can you not feel the warmth of my insincerity' .. the more he tries to convince that he is 'the one' and Labour policies and their economic credibility are intact once more, the more he sounds like a naughty little boy trying to convince mummy that, no, he did not pinch a fiver from her purse to go and buy cigarettes. Miliband should stick to a straight voice, stop acting like a bad Holy roller preacher, so far as is possible tell the truth, repeat again and again his party's good policies, and otherwise shut t f up
I intend to vote labour this time around, for reasons I have typed elsewhere .. however, hearing and watching Miliband I am increasingly struck by the comment made by the old ham actor: 'when I am on stage, can you not feel the warmth of my insincerity' .. the more he tries to convince that he is 'the one' and Labour policies and their economic credibility are intact once more, the more he sounds like a naughty little boy trying to convince mummy that, no, he did not pinch a fiver from her purse to go and buy cigarettes. Miliband should stick to a straight voice, stop acting like a bad Holy roller preacher, so far as is possible tell the truth, repeat again and again his party's good policies, and otherwise shut t f up
I agree - when he's talking naturally he comes across so much better than anything that's 'staged'.
According to the IFS, 90% of estates are already under the inheritance tax threshhold (http://election2015.ifs.org.uk/article/conservatives-proposed-cut-to-inheritance-tax-on-main-homes), and so the proposed changes will disproportionately benefit those at the top of the income distribution. It may also have unintended consequences, in that it may discourage pensioners from downsizing to a property that's more appropriate to their needs, because the cash sum they'll be left with would be taxable if left as part of their estate but the house wouldn't be.
It might be good politics, but it's a stupid idea.
Thanks @aliwibble I read the article, and apologies if I am taking the thread away from the general topic, but inheritance tax is something I feel strongly about.
From what I understand, a beneficiary (non spouse) is entitled to receive an inheritance taxed at 0% up to the first £325,000. Anything above that is taxed at 40%?
This is my basic understanding, but in that article it mentions individual reliefs and the fact that only 90% of estates in this country are hit. Surely there should be more estates in this country that are over the £325k threshold, especially given the rise in property prices.
I think I'm being too simplistic here. Could someone offer any insight?
Ta
check out the law on trusts and gifts .. all will be revealed
The real miliband is the one we are seeing now, he is not a leader a person who can lead the country to a better future, I don't disagree with all they say, but I have a huge issue with the leaders of the party being able to run the country,
Call me dave is not perfect no where near but I do look at him as someone who is able to front his party and be taken as a serious politician,
It's not fair of me to base that decision on looks or stature and who verbally comes across better, but looking at miliband I can not see someone able to cope with the pressures of running a country let alone his own party, socialism imo has no place in a progressive government it's values are not able to be achieved, it's almost ideological
There needs to be someone out there able to tick all the boxes not one party has that person at the forefront front currently, one day hopefully someone will come through who has life experience, worked a normal job until they dabbled in politics and understands the real way people live, if I have one issue across all parties is that none of them have really experienced what living in the UK is actually like
There needs to be someone out there able to tick all the boxes not one party has that person at the forefront front currently, one day hopefully someone will come through who has life experience, worked a normal job until they dabbled in politics and understands the real way people live, if I have one issue across all parties is that none of them have really experienced what living in the UK is actually like
According to the IFS, 90% of estates are already under the inheritance tax threshhold (http://election2015.ifs.org.uk/article/conservatives-proposed-cut-to-inheritance-tax-on-main-homes), and so the proposed changes will disproportionately benefit those at the top of the income distribution. It may also have unintended consequences, in that it may discourage pensioners from downsizing to a property that's more appropriate to their needs, because the cash sum they'll be left with would be taxable if left as part of their estate but the house wouldn't be.
It might be good politics, but it's a stupid idea.
Thanks @aliwibble I read the article, and apologies if I am taking the thread away from the general topic, but inheritance tax is something I feel strongly about.
From what I understand, a beneficiary (non spouse) is entitled to receive an inheritance taxed at 0% up to the first £325,000. Anything above that is taxed at 40%?
This is my basic understanding, but in that article it mentions individual reliefs and the fact that only 90% of estates in this country are hit. Surely there should be more estates in this country that are over the £325k threshold, especially given the rise in property prices.
I think I'm being too simplistic here. Could someone offer any insight?
Ta
It goes up to £650k if there is a married couple or civil partnership involved as the £325 is carried forward to the second death if not otherwise used.
If you believe in redistribution of wealth then IHT is a tool for that. I am not generally in favour of redistribution through income tax. But I think that if you are inheriting in excess of £325k (or £650k) it does not hurt you to pay tax on the excess over £325k (or 650k). That will leave you at least £325k richer than I was when my parents died. And there is plenty that can legitimately be done to reduce that during the parents' lifetime if you don't mind being thought of as a tax avoider by some members of society (mostly, I suppose, this will be people with no chance of being exposed to an IHT bill who'd think that way I.e. the beneficiaries of redistribution).
There is an argument that some put forward that because your parents/whoever have/has paid income tax in their lifetime there should be no tax on death. That argument ignores the whole point of IHT which is to redistribute wealth. Whether that redistribution makes for a "fairer society" depends on your point of view.
According to the IFS, 90% of estates are already under the inheritance tax threshhold (http://election2015.ifs.org.uk/article/conservatives-proposed-cut-to-inheritance-tax-on-main-homes), and so the proposed changes will disproportionately benefit those at the top of the income distribution. It may also have unintended consequences, in that it may discourage pensioners from downsizing to a property that's more appropriate to their needs, because the cash sum they'll be left with would be taxable if left as part of their estate but the house wouldn't be.
It might be good politics, but it's a stupid idea.
Thanks @aliwibble I read the article, and apologies if I am taking the thread away from the general topic, but inheritance tax is something I feel strongly about.
From what I understand, a beneficiary (non spouse) is entitled to receive an inheritance taxed at 0% up to the first £325,000. Anything above that is taxed at 40%?
This is my basic understanding, but in that article it mentions individual reliefs and the fact that only 90% of estates in this country are hit. Surely there should be more estates in this country that are over the £325k threshold, especially given the rise in property prices.
I think I'm being too simplistic here. Could someone offer any insight?
Ta
If you believe in redistribution of wealth then IHT is a tool for that.
Except it isn't because it raises a laughable figure equivalent to less than one percent of Govt.'s total tax take.
Redistributed wealth to me means every single person should get a cheque surely, redistributed wealth back to the government means more money wasted on pens and staples
According to the IFS, 90% of estates are already under the inheritance tax threshhold (http://election2015.ifs.org.uk/article/conservatives-proposed-cut-to-inheritance-tax-on-main-homes), and so the proposed changes will disproportionately benefit those at the top of the income distribution. It may also have unintended consequences, in that it may discourage pensioners from downsizing to a property that's more appropriate to their needs, because the cash sum they'll be left with would be taxable if left as part of their estate but the house wouldn't be.
It might be good politics, but it's a stupid idea.
Thanks @aliwibble I read the article, and apologies if I am taking the thread away from the general topic, but inheritance tax is something I feel strongly about.
From what I understand, a beneficiary (non spouse) is entitled to receive an inheritance taxed at 0% up to the first £325,000. Anything above that is taxed at 40%?
This is my basic understanding, but in that article it mentions individual reliefs and the fact that only 90% of estates in this country are hit. Surely there should be more estates in this country that are over the £325k threshold, especially given the rise in property prices.
I think I'm being too simplistic here. Could someone offer any insight?
Ta
If you believe in redistribution of wealth then IHT is a tool for that.
Except it isn't because it raises a laughable figure equivalent to less than one percent of Govt.'s total tax take.
It is a tool. A Screwdriver is a tool and you could use one to build a reservoir. It's effectiveness is not the point; its purpose is.
According to the IFS, 90% of estates are already under the inheritance tax threshhold (http://election2015.ifs.org.uk/article/conservatives-proposed-cut-to-inheritance-tax-on-main-homes), and so the proposed changes will disproportionately benefit those at the top of the income distribution. It may also have unintended consequences, in that it may discourage pensioners from downsizing to a property that's more appropriate to their needs, because the cash sum they'll be left with would be taxable if left as part of their estate but the house wouldn't be.
It might be good politics, but it's a stupid idea.
From what I understand, a beneficiary (non spouse) is entitled to receive an inheritance taxed at 0% up to the first £325,000. Anything above that is taxed at 40%?
This is my basic understanding, but in that article it mentions individual reliefs and the fact that only 90% of estates in this country are hit. Surely there should be more estates in this country that are over the £325k threshold, especially given the rise in property prices.
I think I'm being too simplistic here. Could someone offer any insight?
Ta
The threshold and the tax debt applies to the estate not the beneficiaries. If an estate worth £600,000 leaves £300,000 to one child and splits the remainder between 2 other children the amount available to the other children is £25,000 plus 60% of £275,000.
According to the IFS, 90% of estates are already under the inheritance tax threshhold (http://election2015.ifs.org.uk/article/conservatives-proposed-cut-to-inheritance-tax-on-main-homes), and so the proposed changes will disproportionately benefit those at the top of the income distribution. It may also have unintended consequences, in that it may discourage pensioners from downsizing to a property that's more appropriate to their needs, because the cash sum they'll be left with would be taxable if left as part of their estate but the house wouldn't be.
It might be good politics, but it's a stupid idea.
Thanks @aliwibble I read the article, and apologies if I am taking the thread away from the general topic, but inheritance tax is something I feel strongly about.
From what I understand, a beneficiary (non spouse) is entitled to receive an inheritance taxed at 0% up to the first £325,000. Anything above that is taxed at 40%?
This is my basic understanding, but in that article it mentions individual reliefs and the fact that only 90% of estates in this country are hit. Surely there should be more estates in this country that are over the £325k threshold, especially given the rise in property prices.
I think I'm being too simplistic here. Could someone offer any insight?
Ta
If you believe in redistribution of wealth then IHT is a tool for that.
Except it isn't because it raises a laughable figure equivalent to less than one percent of Govt.'s total tax take.
Very much so, but the welfare system that was abused by many due to the weak way it was allowed to be in a veiled way to gain votes from a section of society, the fella who started the big issue made a statement that has stuck with me forever a hand up not a hand out,
Cameron is just doing the exact same to a different section of society to gain votes with his hardline approach to the benefit system
If they had any real ideas between any of the parties they would find the appropriate course of action
Instead they feed off of opinion and abuse that sentiment
The problem being it solves nothing it either means innocent people who need support miss out or lazy bstds abuse the system there is no middle ground, Redmidland was inspiring in his honest in his struggle to regain his employment and the shit way his assistance from the state made no impact on his plight, there is where the changes need to be made,
She writes good books but is not really being honest with the reason things need to change
According to the IFS, 90% of estates are already under the inheritance tax threshhold (http://election2015.ifs.org.uk/article/conservatives-proposed-cut-to-inheritance-tax-on-main-homes), and so the proposed changes will disproportionately benefit those at the top of the income distribution. It may also have unintended consequences, in that it may discourage pensioners from downsizing to a property that's more appropriate to their needs, because the cash sum they'll be left with would be taxable if left as part of their estate but the house wouldn't be.
It might be good politics, but it's a stupid idea.
Thanks @aliwibble I read the article, and apologies if I am taking the thread away from the general topic, but inheritance tax is something I feel strongly about.
From what I understand, a beneficiary (non spouse) is entitled to receive an inheritance taxed at 0% up to the first £325,000. Anything above that is taxed at 40%?
This is my basic understanding, but in that article it mentions individual reliefs and the fact that only 90% of estates in this country are hit. Surely there should be more estates in this country that are over the £325k threshold, especially given the rise in property prices.
I think I'm being too simplistic here. Could someone offer any insight?
Ta
If you believe in redistribution of wealth then IHT is a tool for that.
Except it isn't because it raises a laughable figure equivalent to less than one percent of Govt.'s total tax take.
It is a tool. A Screwdriver is a tool and you could use one to build a reservoir. It's effectiveness is not the point; its purpose is.
Tool: a device or implement...used to carry out a particular function. You couldn't build a reservoir with a screwdriver nor redistribute wealth with the erstwhile capital transfer tax. (I see your nit-picking and raise you my hair-splitting.)
Inheritance tax is a frustrating situation as a lot of people affected are not just people born into wealth but the way the house prices have risen if you do succeed in bettering your life for the benefit of yourself and your family not only are you taxed whilst doing it, your kids get taxed again on the same things that you have already paid for and been taxed on
Its painted as it only really effects the super rich the lucky few but in reality if you come from people who were hard working enough to be able to buy property at a time when prices were low or before areas were regenerated and become popular all of that comes at an increased cost to your kids
People who can work should work. Its also worth remembering we cannot have full employment. Those that cannot work through either disability or illness or because they genuinely cannot find work should be well supported and not stigmatised. Those that defraud the benefits system should be wheedled out and feel the full force of the law. Those that defraud the income tax system likewise. Companies that take advantage and hide behind the complex maze of tax laws should be named and shamed. The government must close the loopholes and make the tax laws work.
All logical points I think yet bizarrely none of them currently are in place. Getting these basic points of government right would be a good start.
According to the IFS, 90% of estates are already under the inheritance tax threshhold (http://election2015.ifs.org.uk/article/conservatives-proposed-cut-to-inheritance-tax-on-main-homes), and so the proposed changes will disproportionately benefit those at the top of the income distribution. It may also have unintended consequences, in that it may discourage pensioners from downsizing to a property that's more appropriate to their needs, because the cash sum they'll be left with would be taxable if left as part of their estate but the house wouldn't be.
It might be good politics, but it's a stupid idea.
Thanks @aliwibble I read the article, and apologies if I am taking the thread away from the general topic, but inheritance tax is something I feel strongly about.
From what I understand, a beneficiary (non spouse) is entitled to receive an inheritance taxed at 0% up to the first £325,000. Anything above that is taxed at 40%?
This is my basic understanding, but in that article it mentions individual reliefs and the fact that only 90% of estates in this country are hit. Surely there should be more estates in this country that are over the £325k threshold, especially given the rise in property prices.
I think I'm being too simplistic here. Could someone offer any insight?
Ta
It goes up to £650k if there is a married couple or civil partnership involved as the £325 is carried forward to the second death if not otherwise used.
If you believe in redistribution of wealth then IHT is a tool for that. I am not generally in favour of redistribution through income tax. But I think that if you are inheriting in excess of £325k (or £650k) it does not hurt you to pay tax on the excess over £325k (or 650k). That will leave you at least £325k richer than I was when my parents died. And there is plenty that can legitimately be done to reduce that during the parents' lifetime if you don't mind being thought of as a tax avoider by some members of society (mostly, I suppose, this will be people with no chance of being exposed to an IHT bill who'd think that way I.e. the beneficiaries of redistribution).
There is an argument that some put forward that because your parents/whoever have/has paid income tax in their lifetime there should be no tax on death. That argument ignores the whole point of IHT which is to redistribute wealth. Whether that redistribution makes for a "fairer society" depends on your point of view.
People should not be criticised for not voting, the right to abstain is a fundamental component of a democratic society.
Well, I agree with that if you and the others who say that could at least be bothered to go down to the polling station and write "none of the above" or even something stronger, on your ballot slip. That way it gets counted, and an actual message can be clearly inferred from it. By the way I imagine that Australia and Belgium consider themselves democratic societies, voting there is compulsory. Meanwhile I have to fight like hell to make sure I retain my right to vote - and indeed that the buggers send the postal voting form out in sufficient time.
Anyway, Surbiton remains my constituency and I'll be voting for Ed Davey, an outstandingly hard working constituency MP. As will several of my friends who are naturally either Tory or Labour voters. As an example I've got my personal email from Davey assuring me that he's kicked the electoral office's asses to get the papers out earlier than the 10 days in advance they were planning on. Some of you voting from abroad for the first time may want to look sharp about returning your papers.
Born in Bromley, brought up in Orpington. Been a Liberal all my life.
Very unhappy at the Lib Dems going into coalition with the party I spent my life campaigning against.
Very unhappy with the very silly Student Loans pledges that the NUS love bombed them to sign when the NUS itself favoured a Graduate Tax.
On the other hand they could have sat on their hands, not gone into Govt. There would have been a General Election within a year and I am certain the Tories would have frightened the voters into handing them all the power. Imagine how much worse it would have been and how much more savage the cuts would have been under an untramelled Osborne
If the Tories had governed alone we would have had
- no £10,000 personal allowance - no pupil premium - no huge growth in apprentices - no additional help for Mental Heath - no equality for gay marriage
We would still have had
- the so called bedroom tax - probably much worse - greater privatisation in the NHS - deeper cuts in welfare
Would almost certainly have had
- inheritance tax cuts for the wealthy - boundary changes making it even easier to elect a Tory - further disengagment and retrenchment in the EU
I am sure I can think of many other things.
I believe that the LDs went into a coalition for the sake of the country at a difficult time. They knew that it would be potentially electoral suicide. The easiest thing in the world would have been to sit on their hands.
They will lose a number of a seats but many of their MPs are very decent, hardworking and put the country and their electorate first.
I want to see such decent MPs to name but a few reelected
Ed Davey Norman Lamb Tim Farron Jo Swinburn Vince Cable Charles Kennedy Norman Baker
As for Clegg. I think that history will judge him kindly. An outstandingly able man who is fluent in five languages. A man pillaried for daring to try and change things. I hope he wins his seat. He may not.
I shall as always vote. Voting is our absolute duty. I will register my cross against the Lib Dems - as I have always done and the Liberal Party before that. One day I will actually vote for a candidate who wins a seat - council or consitiuency. To me voting for what I believe in is far more important than picking a winner.
Well said @bingaddick . I think Clegg's decision to go into the coalition 5 years ago did this country a great service and I hope he personally, and the Lib Dems in general, do not suffer too harshly as a result.
Bing I think it's clear our views will differ on the emotive subject such as politics, I won't even try to pretend to have as broader view on the political system and parties involved as what you have, that's a very thought provoking post
Labour was not responsible for the GLOBAL financial crash.
That's true, but they did spend all of the country's "rainy day" fund, didn't they? In other words when there was any financial crash there'd be nowt in the kitty?
Excellent post Bing (and NLA - you really should go into politics - you would get my vote!) - mirrors my feelings and your post is a great summary of a party I still dont understand why they have been written off. Where we differ is that I always look at/research the individual candidates, hoping the Lib Dem is best but sometimes finding one of the other two winning my vote based on their policies.
So many were quick to say the coalition wouldn't last 3 months and it is a great credit it held together. Reading various commentaries it looks like Clegg and Cameron worked together far closer that Blair/Brown ever did and then Brown/anyone.
Comments
From what I understand, a beneficiary (non spouse) is entitled to receive an inheritance taxed at 0% up to the first £325,000. Anything above that is taxed at 40%?
This is my basic understanding, but in that article it mentions individual reliefs and the fact that only 90% of estates in this country are hit. Surely there should be more estates in this country that are over the £325k threshold, especially given the rise in property prices.
I think I'm being too simplistic here. Could someone offer any insight?
Ta
Miliband should stick to a straight voice, stop acting like a bad Holy roller preacher, so far as is possible tell the truth, repeat again and again his party's good policies, and otherwise shut t f up
Call me dave is not perfect no where near but I do look at him as someone who is able to front his party and be taken as a serious politician,
It's not fair of me to base that decision on looks or stature and who verbally comes across better, but looking at miliband I can not see someone able to cope with the pressures of running a country let alone his own party, socialism imo has no place in a progressive government it's values are not able to be achieved, it's almost ideological
There needs to be someone out there able to tick all the boxes not one party has that person at the forefront front currently, one day hopefully someone will come through who has life experience, worked a normal job until they dabbled in politics and understands the real way people live, if I have one issue across all parties is that none of them have really experienced what living in the UK is actually like
If you believe in redistribution of wealth then IHT is a tool for that. I am not generally in favour of redistribution through income tax. But I think that if you are inheriting in excess of £325k (or £650k) it does not hurt you to pay tax on the excess over £325k (or 650k). That will leave you at least £325k richer than I was when my parents died. And there is plenty that can legitimately be done to reduce that during the parents' lifetime if you don't mind being thought of as a tax avoider by some members of society (mostly, I suppose, this will be people with no chance of being exposed to an IHT bill who'd think that way I.e. the beneficiaries of redistribution).
There is an argument that some put forward that because your parents/whoever have/has paid income tax in their lifetime there should be no tax on death. That argument ignores the whole point of IHT which is to redistribute wealth. Whether that redistribution makes for a "fairer society" depends on your point of view.
I think.
Cameron is just doing the exact same to a different section of society to gain votes with his hardline approach to the benefit system
If they had any real ideas between any of the parties they would find the appropriate course of action
Instead they feed off of opinion and abuse that sentiment
The problem being it solves nothing it either means innocent people who need support miss out or lazy bstds abuse the system there is no middle ground, Redmidland was inspiring in his honest in his struggle to regain his employment and the shit way his assistance from the state made no impact on his plight, there is where the changes need to be made,
She writes good books but is not really being honest with the reason things need to change
Its painted as it only really effects the super rich the lucky few but in reality if you come from people who were hard working enough to be able to buy property at a time when prices were low or before areas were regenerated and become popular all of that comes at an increased cost to your kids
All logical points I think yet bizarrely none of them currently are in place. Getting these basic points of government right would be a good start.
Very unhappy at the Lib Dems going into coalition with the party I spent my life campaigning against.
Very unhappy with the very silly Student Loans pledges that the NUS love bombed them to sign when the NUS itself favoured a Graduate Tax.
On the other hand they could have sat on their hands, not gone into Govt. There would have been a General Election within a year and I am certain the Tories would have frightened the voters into handing them all the power. Imagine how much worse it would have been and how much more savage the cuts would have been under an untramelled Osborne
If the Tories had governed alone we would have had
- no £10,000 personal allowance
- no pupil premium
- no huge growth in apprentices
- no additional help for Mental Heath
- no equality for gay marriage
We would still have had
- the so called bedroom tax - probably much worse
- greater privatisation in the NHS
- deeper cuts in welfare
Would almost certainly have had
- inheritance tax cuts for the wealthy
- boundary changes making it even easier to elect a Tory
- further disengagment and retrenchment in the EU
I am sure I can think of many other things.
I believe that the LDs went into a coalition for the sake of the country at a difficult time. They knew that it would be potentially electoral suicide. The easiest thing in the world would have been to sit on their hands.
They will lose a number of a seats but many of their MPs are very decent, hardworking and put the country and their electorate first.
I want to see such decent MPs to name but a few reelected
Ed Davey
Norman Lamb
Tim Farron
Jo Swinburn
Vince Cable
Charles Kennedy
Norman Baker
As for Clegg. I think that history will judge him kindly. An outstandingly able man who is fluent in five languages. A man pillaried for daring to try and change things. I hope he wins his seat. He may not.
I shall as always vote. Voting is our absolute duty. I will register my cross against the Lib Dems - as I have always done and the Liberal Party before that. One day I will actually vote for a candidate who wins a seat - council or consitiuency. To me voting for what I believe in is far more important than picking a winner.
theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/conservatives-six-point-lead-guardian-icm-poll-labour#comments
Where we differ is that I always look at/research the individual candidates, hoping the Lib Dem is best but sometimes finding one of the other two winning my vote based on their policies.
So many were quick to say the coalition wouldn't last 3 months and it is a great credit it held together. Reading various commentaries it looks like Clegg and Cameron worked together far closer that Blair/Brown ever did and then Brown/anyone.