Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Savings and Investments thread
Comments
-
I don't have to wait 10 days. I'll get zero again for the 4th straight month since I reduced my holding to £10k!Rob7Lee said:
Patience, still 10 days to go until the next draw!northstandsteve said:can we all just get back to posting what we got in the monthly premium bonds draw as this is all completely above my head.1 -
Invest in a Business Relief scheme (previously called Business Property Relief). After 2 years they are IHT free. £1m allowance - reduced to £500k if you invest in AIM shares.
So take your TFC out of your pension & put it there. A tax allowance that hardly anyone uses. But it's there.0 -
But is not without risk, could quite easily lose money and also quite illiquid.golfaddick said:Invest in a Business Relief scheme (previously called Business Property Relief). After 2 years they are IHT free. £1m allowance - reduced to £500k if you invest in AIM shares.
So take your TFC out of your pension & put it there. A tax allowance that hardly anyone uses. But it's there.0 -
Yes, you could lose money but I'm.sure £ for £ you wouldn't lose 40% like you would do to IHT.Rob7Lee said:
But is not without risk, could quite easily lose money and also quite illiquid.golfaddick said:Invest in a Business Relief scheme (previously called Business Property Relief). After 2 years they are IHT free. £1m allowance - reduced to £500k if you invest in AIM shares.
So take your TFC out of your pension & put it there. A tax allowance that hardly anyone uses. But it's there.
And not that illiquid. Most schemes will repay you with 4-6 weeks.0 -
Invested in unlisted and AIM companies generally aren't they? Sounds a minefield to me, income (if there was any) would be taxed unlike whilst it's in the pension? But despite that I agree it is a way to legally avoid IHT.golfaddick said:
Yes, you could lose money but I'm.sure £ for £ you wouldn't lose 40% like you would do to IHT.Rob7Lee said:
But is not without risk, could quite easily lose money and also quite illiquid.golfaddick said:Invest in a Business Relief scheme (previously called Business Property Relief). After 2 years they are IHT free. £1m allowance - reduced to £500k if you invest in AIM shares.
So take your TFC out of your pension & put it there. A tax allowance that hardly anyone uses. But it's there.
And not that illiquid. Most schemes will repay you with 4-6 weeks.
As an aside, what aren't farms held like this?0 -
No tax to pay at all. The schemes I've looked at & advised on have showed steady gains of around 3%-4% pa. Mostly invested in infrastructure, solar tech & lending. Imo you are not investing to make money but to reduce your Estate paying 40% tax on inherited assets.Rob7Lee said:
Invested in unlisted and AIM companies generally aren't they? Sounds a minefield to me, income (if there was any) would be taxed unlike whilst it's in the pension? But despite that I agree it is a way to legally avoid IHT.golfaddick said:
Yes, you could lose money but I'm.sure £ for £ you wouldn't lose 40% like you would do to IHT.Rob7Lee said:
But is not without risk, could quite easily lose money and also quite illiquid.golfaddick said:Invest in a Business Relief scheme (previously called Business Property Relief). After 2 years they are IHT free. £1m allowance - reduced to £500k if you invest in AIM shares.
So take your TFC out of your pension & put it there. A tax allowance that hardly anyone uses. But it's there.
And not that illiquid. Most schemes will repay you with 4-6 weeks.
As an aside, what aren't farms held like this?0 -
I just want to challenge this way of thinking a little bit. You've never been through the education system? Never been on a road? Or used a railway? Drunk clean water? Eaten food that you know is safe and meets certain standards? Breathed clean air? Benefited from a street light? Had employee rights? Hired someone else who has been educated? Used the NHS? Had a prescription? Been to a park? Had a loved one helped by the NHS? Known that if you did need the NHS it's there? Known that if you got injured at work you would get support? And a million and seven other things.red10 said:Sorry to repeat, IHT is an absolute piss take, raking money off people who have worked hard and have already been taxed on that money so they can invest and arrange their own finances and not live off the state. I have never claimed a penny in my life but paid plenty in.
You definitely don't expect the NHS to be there for you in the last 10 years of your life when (assuming you're a male) you'll generate more than 90% of your cost to the NHS?
None of this is possible without tax. When you think about it you take plenty out, as we all do. Different people pay in different amounts and take out different amounts. Running an ambulance for 2 days costs about what I pay in income tax in a year. I've never had to use one, thankfully, but boy am I glad it's there if I did.
Isn't that the price of living in a civilised society?
The way we think about tax in this country is so wrong.7 -
cantersaddick said:
I just want to challenge this way of thinking a little bit. You've never been through the education system? Never been on a road? Or used a railway? Drunk clean water? Eaten food that you know is safe and meets certain standards? Breathed clean air? Benefited from a street light? Had employee rights? Hired someone else who has been educated? Used the NHS? Had a prescription? Been to a park? Had a loved one helped by the NHS? Known that if you did need the NHS it's there? Known that if you got injured at work you would get support? And a million and seven other things.red10 said:Sorry to repeat, IHT is an absolute piss take, raking money off people who have worked hard and have already been taxed on that money so they can invest and arrange their own finances and not live off the state. I have never claimed a penny in my life but paid plenty in.
You definitely don't expect the NHS to be there for you in the last 10 years of your life when (assuming you're a male) you'll generate more than 90% of your cost to the NHS?
None of this is possible without tax. When you think about it you take plenty out, as we all do. Different people pay in different amounts and take out different amounts. Running an ambulance for 2 days costs about what I pay in income tax in a year. I've never had to use one, thankfully, but boy am I glad it's there if I did.
Isn't that the price of living in a civilised society?
The way we think about tax in this country is so wrong.cantersaddick said:
I just want to challenge this way of thinking a little bit. You've never been through the education system? Never been on a road? Or used a railway? Drunk clean water? Eaten food that you know is safe and meets certain standards? Breathed clean air? Benefited from a street light? Had employee rights? Hired someone else who has been educated? Used the NHS? Had a prescription? Been to a park? Had a loved one helped by the NHS? Known that if you did need the NHS it's there? Known that if you got injured at work you would get support? And a million and seven other things.red10 said:Sorry to repeat, IHT is an absolute piss take, raking money off people who have worked hard and have already been taxed on that money so they can invest and arrange their own finances and not live off the state. I have never claimed a penny in my life but paid plenty in.
You definitely don't expect the NHS to be there for you in the last 10 years of your life when (assuming you're a male) you'll generate more than 90% of your cost to the NHS?
None of this is possible without tax. When you think about it you take plenty out, as we all do. Different people pay in different amounts and take out different amounts. Running an ambulance for 2 days costs about what I pay in income tax in a year. I've never had to use one, thankfully, but boy am I glad it's there if I did.
Isn't that the price of living in a civilised society?
The way we think about tax in this country is so wrong.I paid income tax all my working life, multiple thousands of pounds, I do not dispute that services need to be paid for but I still belive that when you want to leave your money, it's your money and has already been taxed.CGT on assets is fine, but not the bottom line of what you have worked for.1 -
Red is referring to tax IHT specifically. I'll admit it's a tax I struggle with at times, morally. Taking money from someone....... because they have died. If someone dies 'young' (lets say at 52 as one of my client did just last week or 47 as one of my staffs fathers did when they were on Holiday in Australia earlier this year)) and therefore still has their assets and whatever is built up in pension etc, because they have been sensible, because they haven't had the opportunity to spend it, the tax man potentially takes a chunk. Had they lived to say 79 (the average for a man in the UK), they may have spent a large chunk of it and maybe the tax man then doesn't take a chunk.cantersaddick said:
I just want to challenge this way of thinking a little bit. You've never been through the education system? Never been on a road? Or used a railway? Drunk clean water? Eaten food that you know is safe and meets certain standards? Breathed clean air? Benefited from a street light? Had employee rights? Hired someone else who has been educated? Used the NHS? Had a prescription? Been to a park? Had a loved one helped by the NHS? Known that if you did need the NHS it's there? Known that if you got injured at work you would get support? And a million and seven other things.red10 said:Sorry to repeat, IHT is an absolute piss take, raking money off people who have worked hard and have already been taxed on that money so they can invest and arrange their own finances and not live off the state. I have never claimed a penny in my life but paid plenty in.
You definitely don't expect the NHS to be there for you in the last 10 years of your life when (assuming you're a male) you'll generate more than 90% of your cost to the NHS?
None of this is possible without tax. When you think about it you take plenty out, as we all do. Different people pay in different amounts and take out different amounts. Running an ambulance for 2 days costs about what I pay in income tax in a year. I've never had to use one, thankfully, but boy am I glad it's there if I did.
Isn't that the price of living in a civilised society?
The way we think about tax in this country is so wrong.
So many talk about inheritance being unfair, not having been worked for etc and an accident of birth, IHT can be an accident of death! You no longer have the choice to spend and for that you are penalised.
I think it is much more equitable in society to pay as you go, not when you go.
There's many of our neighbours in Europe who don't have IHT or equivalent. Norway, Sweden, Austria, Latvia, Estonia, Cyprus, about 1/3rd of Europe. Many of those who do are at a much lower level than us (Portugal is 10%, Italy single digit as are Croatia and Bulgaria).
What irks me more than the tax itself, and this applies to lots of taxes, the limits rarely increase. When my mum died over 17 years ago the nil rate band was £312k and for the last 16 years it's been £325k, that's an annually increasing tax. £312k in 2008 is today over £500k by inflation, or in your varying way/model I suspect it's in buying power north of £1.5m!0 -
I was more talking about the frankly ridiculous notion that someone might "never have claimed a penny in their life" when reality is that everyone benefits directly and indirectly.
I wasn't really talking about the rights and wrongs of IHT specifically. I understand your point of view here. Its not one I agree with, but I see where it comes from.
Fiscal drag is a huge huge issue (don't get me started) but IHT is one where the thresholds have actually moved (not enough) since 2010. Most haven't at all.0 - Sponsored links:
-
red10 said:cantersaddick said:
I just want to challenge this way of thinking a little bit. You've never been through the education system? Never been on a road? Or used a railway? Drunk clean water? Eaten food that you know is safe and meets certain standards? Breathed clean air? Benefited from a street light? Had employee rights? Hired someone else who has been educated? Used the NHS? Had a prescription? Been to a park? Had a loved one helped by the NHS? Known that if you did need the NHS it's there? Known that if you got injured at work you would get support? And a million and seven other things.red10 said:Sorry to repeat, IHT is an absolute piss take, raking money off people who have worked hard and have already been taxed on that money so they can invest and arrange their own finances and not live off the state. I have never claimed a penny in my life but paid plenty in.
You definitely don't expect the NHS to be there for you in the last 10 years of your life when (assuming you're a male) you'll generate more than 90% of your cost to the NHS?
None of this is possible without tax. When you think about it you take plenty out, as we all do. Different people pay in different amounts and take out different amounts. Running an ambulance for 2 days costs about what I pay in income tax in a year. I've never had to use one, thankfully, but boy am I glad it's there if I did.
Isn't that the price of living in a civilised society?
The way we think about tax in this country is so wrong.
I paid income tax all my working life, multiple thousands of pounds, I do not dispute that services need to be paid for but I still belive that when you want to leave your money, it's your money and has already been taxed.cantersaddick said:
I just want to challenge this way of thinking a little bit. You've never been through the education system? Never been on a road? Or used a railway? Drunk clean water? Eaten food that you know is safe and meets certain standards? Breathed clean air? Benefited from a street light? Had employee rights? Hired someone else who has been educated? Used the NHS? Had a prescription? Been to a park? Had a loved one helped by the NHS? Known that if you did need the NHS it's there? Known that if you got injured at work you would get support? And a million and seven other things.red10 said:Sorry to repeat, IHT is an absolute piss take, raking money off people who have worked hard and have already been taxed on that money so they can invest and arrange their own finances and not live off the state. I have never claimed a penny in my life but paid plenty in.
You definitely don't expect the NHS to be there for you in the last 10 years of your life when (assuming you're a male) you'll generate more than 90% of your cost to the NHS?
None of this is possible without tax. When you think about it you take plenty out, as we all do. Different people pay in different amounts and take out different amounts. Running an ambulance for 2 days costs about what I pay in income tax in a year. I've never had to use one, thankfully, but boy am I glad it's there if I did.
Isn't that the price of living in a civilised society?
The way we think about tax in this country is so wrong.I agree that it's your money after you have paid your tax - you have worked, sacrificed your time, and contributed to society, and it's only right that you can 'spend it' how you like. That's why I am against a wealth tax on the person who has already paid their whack.The person(s) inheriting your wealth (the deceased doesn't pay the IHT, they do) haven't contributed to society at all from the windfall they are about to receive - all untaxed inherited wealth does is perpetuate inequality and restrict social mobility - the wealth just goes to the next generation of the family and maintains the divide. You can leave up to £1m to your children free of IHT - that's enough. I concede that property in certain parts of the country has a greater value that can skew the figures and perhaps there is a way to recognise that by scaling or similar (but I haven't thought that through).It only affects a small proportion of estates anyway:HMRC reported that 27,000 estates (3.73% of all deaths in the UK) paid inheritance tax in 2020/21. The tax raised £5.76 billion that year. The total value of wealth protected from inheritance tax was around £28 billion, chiefly because of transfers between spouses and civil partners, which accounted for £15.7 billion of wealth protected.That's my view anyway - you don't have to agree
3 -
It’s difficult to argue against pension being subject to IHT given you enjoyed a tax break when saving / paying in ie you aren’t being taxed twice.Likewise pensions are primarily designed for the individual / couple not for their descendants.5
-
I suspect the definition of claimed in that sentence is just that, not 'make use of', a subtle difference but I understand your points.cantersaddick said:I was more talking about the frankly ridiculous notion that someone might "never have claimed a penny in their life" when reality is that everyone benefits directly and indirectly.
I wasn't really talking about the rights and wrongs of IHT specifically. I understand your point of view here. Its not one I agree with, but I see where it comes from.
Fiscal drag is a huge huge issue (don't get me started) but IHT is one where the thresholds have actually moved (not enough) since 2010. Most haven't at all.
IHT threshold has not moved since the 6th April 2009, yes a property element was brought in (2017?) but house prices have outstripped inflation by 2x and that doesn't apply to many people anyway as it's only for direct descendants. My sister has no children so her NRB has and will no doubt remain at £325k as it has since 2009.
Anyway, I need to get back to spending the kids inheritance
0 -
Rob7Lee said:
I suspect the definition of claimed in that sentence is just that, not 'make use of', a subtle difference but I understand your points.cantersaddick said:I was more talking about the frankly ridiculous notion that someone might "never have claimed a penny in their life" when reality is that everyone benefits directly and indirectly.
I wasn't really talking about the rights and wrongs of IHT specifically. I understand your point of view here. Its not one I agree with, but I see where it comes from.
Fiscal drag is a huge huge issue (don't get me started) but IHT is one where the thresholds have actually moved (not enough) since 2010. Most haven't at all.
IHT threshold has not moved since the 6th April 2009, yes a property element was brought in (2017?) but house prices have outstripped inflation by 2x and that doesn't apply to many people anyway as it's only for direct descendants. My sister has no children so her NRB has and will no doubt remain at £325k as it has since 2009.
Anyway, I need to get back to spending the kids inheritance
You know it makes sense 2 -
The Mrs is helping (too much) she picks up her new car next Fridaybobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
I suspect the definition of claimed in that sentence is just that, not 'make use of', a subtle difference but I understand your points.cantersaddick said:I was more talking about the frankly ridiculous notion that someone might "never have claimed a penny in their life" when reality is that everyone benefits directly and indirectly.
I wasn't really talking about the rights and wrongs of IHT specifically. I understand your point of view here. Its not one I agree with, but I see where it comes from.
Fiscal drag is a huge huge issue (don't get me started) but IHT is one where the thresholds have actually moved (not enough) since 2010. Most haven't at all.
IHT threshold has not moved since the 6th April 2009, yes a property element was brought in (2017?) but house prices have outstripped inflation by 2x and that doesn't apply to many people anyway as it's only for direct descendants. My sister has no children so her NRB has and will no doubt remain at £325k as it has since 2009.
Anyway, I need to get back to spending the kids inheritance
You know it makes sense
1 -
cantersaddick said:I was more talking about the frankly ridiculous notion that someone might "never have claimed a penny in their life" when reality is that everyone benefits directly and indirectly.
I wasn't really talking about the rights and wrongs of IHT specifically. I understand your point of view here. Its not one I agree with, but I see where it comes from.
Fiscal drag is a huge huge issue (don't get me started) but IHT is one where the thresholds have actually moved (not enough) since 2010. Most haven't at all.As in I have never been on benefits and have paid in a significant of money into the system, so basically I have paid my dues.
0 -
Rob7Lee said:
The Mrs is helping (too much) she picks up her new car next Fridaybobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
I suspect the definition of claimed in that sentence is just that, not 'make use of', a subtle difference but I understand your points.cantersaddick said:I was more talking about the frankly ridiculous notion that someone might "never have claimed a penny in their life" when reality is that everyone benefits directly and indirectly.
I wasn't really talking about the rights and wrongs of IHT specifically. I understand your point of view here. Its not one I agree with, but I see where it comes from.
Fiscal drag is a huge huge issue (don't get me started) but IHT is one where the thresholds have actually moved (not enough) since 2010. Most haven't at all.
IHT threshold has not moved since the 6th April 2009, yes a property element was brought in (2017?) but house prices have outstripped inflation by 2x and that doesn't apply to many people anyway as it's only for direct descendants. My sister has no children so her NRB has and will no doubt remain at £325k as it has since 2009.
Anyway, I need to get back to spending the kids inheritance
You know it makes sense Thankfully my wife isn't really in to cars, hers is three years old this year and I keep saying maybe due a new one and she keeps saying it's fine for another couple of years! Jewellery, handbags and shoes are enough!Me on the other hand, being a confirmed petrol head - my new one was delivered to the dealer yesterday, I've been tracking it since it left the factory. Another chunk of the boys' inheritance disappearing3 -
But you have taken from the system in countless other ways as we all have. And will continue to do so at an increasing rate until you die. The focus on benefits is all wrong. That's just one small way that people take from the system over a lifetime.red10 said:cantersaddick said:I was more talking about the frankly ridiculous notion that someone might "never have claimed a penny in their life" when reality is that everyone benefits directly and indirectly.
I wasn't really talking about the rights and wrongs of IHT specifically. I understand your point of view here. Its not one I agree with, but I see where it comes from.
Fiscal drag is a huge huge issue (don't get me started) but IHT is one where the thresholds have actually moved (not enough) since 2010. Most haven't at all.As in I have never been on benefits and have paid in a significant of money into the system, so basically I have paid my dues.
"I've paid my dues" comes across as a pretty entitled way of thinking about it. And i thought it was us millennials who were meant to be the entitled ones.
0 -
Yes, but people on benefits are benefiting greatly. They are enjoying all the services you listed without paying in AND then they are taking out money as well. Double bubble.cantersaddick said:
But you have taken from the system in countless other ways as we all have. And will continue to do so at an increasing rate until you die. The focus on benefits is all wrong. That's just one small way that people take from the system over a lifetime.red10 said:cantersaddick said:I was more talking about the frankly ridiculous notion that someone might "never have claimed a penny in their life" when reality is that everyone benefits directly and indirectly.
I wasn't really talking about the rights and wrongs of IHT specifically. I understand your point of view here. Its not one I agree with, but I see where it comes from.
Fiscal drag is a huge huge issue (don't get me started) but IHT is one where the thresholds have actually moved (not enough) since 2010. Most haven't at all.As in I have never been on benefits and have paid in a significant of money into the system, so basically I have paid my dues.
"I've paid my dues" comes across as a pretty entitled way of thinking about it. And i thought it was us millennials who were meant to be the entitled ones.8 -
People (and government!) will focus on any element they think has become unfair or out of control. The benefit bill has become unmanageable in size and is set to even grow considerably more. It's also partly back to what we were saying the other day, 1 in 5 people of working age are not in (paid) work. Even after WWII and almost every year up until about 7 years ago it was about 4-5%.cantersaddick said:
But you have taken from the system in countless other ways as we all have. And will continue to do so at an increasing rate until you die. The focus on benefits is all wrong. That's just one small way that people take from the system over a lifetime.red10 said:cantersaddick said:I was more talking about the frankly ridiculous notion that someone might "never have claimed a penny in their life" when reality is that everyone benefits directly and indirectly.
I wasn't really talking about the rights and wrongs of IHT specifically. I understand your point of view here. Its not one I agree with, but I see where it comes from.
Fiscal drag is a huge huge issue (don't get me started) but IHT is one where the thresholds have actually moved (not enough) since 2010. Most haven't at all.As in I have never been on benefits and have paid in a significant of money into the system, so basically I have paid my dues.
"I've paid my dues" comes across as a pretty entitled way of thinking about it. And i thought it was us millennials who were meant to be the entitled ones.
It's like Motorbility where thats running into issues (I have to be careful what I say on that as under an NDA), did you know that scheme buys almost 25% of ALL new cars sold in the UK?1 - Sponsored links:
-
To be fair it’s me that insists she has a new one every 3 years, she’s not a petrol head like me, but I’ve slowly weened her off being frugal (we both come from poor backgrounds where you made do and mended) and to enjoy the finer things in life. She can have her handbags, shoes and expensive hair do’s and holidays as long as I can have my watches and odd expensive car!bobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
The Mrs is helping (too much) she picks up her new car next Fridaybobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
I suspect the definition of claimed in that sentence is just that, not 'make use of', a subtle difference but I understand your points.cantersaddick said:I was more talking about the frankly ridiculous notion that someone might "never have claimed a penny in their life" when reality is that everyone benefits directly and indirectly.
I wasn't really talking about the rights and wrongs of IHT specifically. I understand your point of view here. Its not one I agree with, but I see where it comes from.
Fiscal drag is a huge huge issue (don't get me started) but IHT is one where the thresholds have actually moved (not enough) since 2010. Most haven't at all.
IHT threshold has not moved since the 6th April 2009, yes a property element was brought in (2017?) but house prices have outstripped inflation by 2x and that doesn't apply to many people anyway as it's only for direct descendants. My sister has no children so her NRB has and will no doubt remain at £325k as it has since 2009.
Anyway, I need to get back to spending the kids inheritance
You know it makes sense Thankfully my wife isn't really in to cars, hers is three years old this year and I keep saying maybe due a new one and she keeps saying it's fine for another couple of years! Jewellery, handbags and shoes are enough!Me on the other hand, being a confirmed petrol head - my new one was delivered to the dealer yesterday, I've been tracking it since it left the factory. Another chunk of the boys' inheritance disappearing0 -
I’ve said above that I have no issue with IHT being applied to my pension. I do agree with @bobmunro about property though. Something really needs to be done to factor in the huge disparity in property values across the country. No reason at all that some form of regional averages can’t be looked at to find a way to make this more equitable when determining the estate and the portion that should be subject to IHT.2
-
Yes, that's the perception. And I get why people are inclined to look below them and blame people who are having a harder life than them therefore may take more. But people are massively undervaluing what they themselves take to make themselves feel better about it. If you've had 2+ kids and live to old age your NHS costs will likely be larger than their benefit bill. If a loved one has had cancer treatment (or major op, or even a hip replacement) it'll dwarf it. Many people who think they are net contributors because they only think about cash payments are not. They are net takers. Yes some may be net takers by more but the entitlement of "I've paid in my whole life" is just wrong.Rob7Lee said:
People (and government!) will focus on any element they think has become unfair or out of control. The benefit bill has become unmanageable in size and is set to even grow considerably more. It's also partly back to what we were saying the other day, 1 in 5 people of working age are not in (paid) work. Even after WWII and almost every year up until about 7 years ago it was about 4-5%.cantersaddick said:
But you have taken from the system in countless other ways as we all have. And will continue to do so at an increasing rate until you die. The focus on benefits is all wrong. That's just one small way that people take from the system over a lifetime.red10 said:cantersaddick said:I was more talking about the frankly ridiculous notion that someone might "never have claimed a penny in their life" when reality is that everyone benefits directly and indirectly.
I wasn't really talking about the rights and wrongs of IHT specifically. I understand your point of view here. Its not one I agree with, but I see where it comes from.
Fiscal drag is a huge huge issue (don't get me started) but IHT is one where the thresholds have actually moved (not enough) since 2010. Most haven't at all.As in I have never been on benefits and have paid in a significant of money into the system, so basically I have paid my dues.
"I've paid my dues" comes across as a pretty entitled way of thinking about it. And i thought it was us millennials who were meant to be the entitled ones.
It's like Motorbility where thats running into issues (I have to be careful what I say on that as under an NDA), did you know that scheme buys almost 25% of ALL new cars sold in the UK?1 -
I don't think it's perception about the size of the benefit costs and how it's increased over the last few years, over 300bn (now roughly running at 10%+ of GDP and a quarter of all government expenditure), we've all seen the latest in parliament on this, perception it is not.cantersaddick said:
Yes, that's the perception. And I get why people are inclined to look below them and blame people who are having a harder life than them therefore may take more. But people are massively undervaluing what they themselves take to make themselves feel better about it. If you've had 2+ kids and live to old age your NHS costs will likely be larger than their benefit bill. If a loved one has had cancer treatment (or major op, or even a hip replacement) it'll dwarf it. Many people who think they are net contributors because they only think about cash payments are not. They are net takers. Yes some may be net takers by more but the entitlement of "I've paid in my whole life" is just wrong.Rob7Lee said:
People (and government!) will focus on any element they think has become unfair or out of control. The benefit bill has become unmanageable in size and is set to even grow considerably more. It's also partly back to what we were saying the other day, 1 in 5 people of working age are not in (paid) work. Even after WWII and almost every year up until about 7 years ago it was about 4-5%.cantersaddick said:
But you have taken from the system in countless other ways as we all have. And will continue to do so at an increasing rate until you die. The focus on benefits is all wrong. That's just one small way that people take from the system over a lifetime.red10 said:cantersaddick said:I was more talking about the frankly ridiculous notion that someone might "never have claimed a penny in their life" when reality is that everyone benefits directly and indirectly.
I wasn't really talking about the rights and wrongs of IHT specifically. I understand your point of view here. Its not one I agree with, but I see where it comes from.
Fiscal drag is a huge huge issue (don't get me started) but IHT is one where the thresholds have actually moved (not enough) since 2010. Most haven't at all.As in I have never been on benefits and have paid in a significant of money into the system, so basically I have paid my dues.
"I've paid my dues" comes across as a pretty entitled way of thinking about it. And i thought it was us millennials who were meant to be the entitled ones.
It's like Motorbility where thats running into issues (I have to be careful what I say on that as under an NDA), did you know that scheme buys almost 25% of ALL new cars sold in the UK?
Nearly 4m working age people receive health related benefits, up from 1.2m 5 years ago. Thats a huge increase and isn't a perception, it's fact.
The rise in economic inactivity in 18-24 year olds since the pandemic, is not perception, nor is the 18-64 year olds increase since 2019 (now over 11m in the band are not in paid work, over 9.5m are not unemployed, they are not looking for work or available to start any work).
The 'bill' as it stands will only get bigger especially as we live longer and expect there to be many more pensioners in the next 5-10 years (sadly in this country we have always funded state pension each year with that years income, there is no historic built up pot to use).
It's not about 'look below' as you put it, or who is or isn't a net contributor or taker (there will always be both, for a multitude of reasons and it can't work any other way). I'm 100% sure my wife is a net 'taker' based on the fact she pays almost no income tax, i'm not looking down on her! I'd envisage i'm a net contributor and she's certainly not looking up on me I can tell you! :-)
We've been here earlier this week, but if government spending has increased from broadly 700m to 1.3trn in recent years, something has to give as it's not as if anyone feels their lives are particularly better, there's still holes in the road, waiting lists, lack of availability for GP/Dentist etc.
Anyone who doesn't think we have a completely broken system from left to right and top to bottom needs to give their head a rather serious wobble.7 -
We have a complicated enough tax system, we need to stop making it even more so. Just remove it completely and pay as you go through life. IHT raises less than 1% of income tax, just increase income tax rates (and/or CGT etc, although CGT despite attempts/changes is a decreasing revenue).TelMc32 said:I’ve said above that I have no issue with IHT being applied to my pension. I do agree with @bobmunro about property though. Something really needs to be done to factor in the huge disparity in property values across the country. No reason at all that some form of regional averages can’t be looked at to find a way to make this more equitable when determining the estate and the portion that should be subject to IHT.
For your standard type estates that pay some IHT (£1-5m), in my experience a lot of inheritance gets spent quite quickly anyway and would therefore attract VAT, boosting the economy etc.0 -
Thats the thing, people like me don't tend to save money. Not because we are shit with it but mainly because life swallow a lot of it, we are used to not having much of it so dont really know what to do when we get it and make a sum of money work for us, so we spend it.Rob7Lee said:
We have a complicated enough tax system, we need to stop making it even more so. Just remove it completely and pay as you go through life. IHT raises less than 1% of income tax, just increase income tax rates (and/or CGT etc, although CGT despite attempts/changes is a decreasing revenue).TelMc32 said:I’ve said above that I have no issue with IHT being applied to my pension. I do agree with @bobmunro about property though. Something really needs to be done to factor in the huge disparity in property values across the country. No reason at all that some form of regional averages can’t be looked at to find a way to make this more equitable when determining the estate and the portion that should be subject to IHT.
For your standard type estates that pay some IHT (£1-5m), in my experience a lot of inheritance gets spent quite quickly anyway and would therefore attract VAT, boosting the economy etc.
I try my hardest to save and pay attention to where economic winds may be blowing, what sectors are worth thinking about investing in to make what money I haven't spent, work, but in reality I'm someone the government should want to have access to as much money as possible because I will spend it.
One of the arguments about "tax the rich" isnt without merit, trickle down doesn't really work in anyway that will turn this tanker of an economy around. And the very wealthy are savvy with money, aren't know for running their rainy day fund down, buying things on 13% HP. They keep hold of it, often by buying assets like housing stock and renting it to the less well off keeping them at arms length (this is one example) and having a solid gold investment of bricks and mortar. Supply or lack of it, and demand and the excess of it, takes care of the rest. And if I'm a first time buyer going against someone with the cash to pay the asking price or above its never going to be me winning that fiscal battle. Same if I go for a place, I've got a property to sell, that makes a chain, if one of these individuals who decides property is a sensible and desirable way to make money offers the same as me or even less. The seller will take their offer
4 -
A quick win could be for the government to set up & "advertise" a simple online system where all the people that want to pay more tax can do so in a matter of clicks.
Presumably there is a reason why I've never heard it even suggested?0 -
Again, not my point which was that the attitude of "I've paid therefore I am entitled to my pension and use of the NHS and all other services for the rest of my life" and using others take more as a justification to take what you need and moan about tax. I just think that entire attitude is wrong and the cost of those services show it to be bullshit irrelevant of what others use.Rob7Lee said:
I don't think it's perception about the size of the benefit costs and how it's increased over the last few years, over 300bn (now roughly running at 10%+ of GDP and a quarter of all government expenditure), we've all seen the latest in parliament on this, perception it is not.cantersaddick said:
Yes, that's the perception. And I get why people are inclined to look below them and blame people who are having a harder life than them therefore may take more. But people are massively undervaluing what they themselves take to make themselves feel better about it. If you've had 2+ kids and live to old age your NHS costs will likely be larger than their benefit bill. If a loved one has had cancer treatment (or major op, or even a hip replacement) it'll dwarf it. Many people who think they are net contributors because they only think about cash payments are not. They are net takers. Yes some may be net takers by more but the entitlement of "I've paid in my whole life" is just wrong.Rob7Lee said:
People (and government!) will focus on any element they think has become unfair or out of control. The benefit bill has become unmanageable in size and is set to even grow considerably more. It's also partly back to what we were saying the other day, 1 in 5 people of working age are not in (paid) work. Even after WWII and almost every year up until about 7 years ago it was about 4-5%.cantersaddick said:
But you have taken from the system in countless other ways as we all have. And will continue to do so at an increasing rate until you die. The focus on benefits is all wrong. That's just one small way that people take from the system over a lifetime.red10 said:cantersaddick said:I was more talking about the frankly ridiculous notion that someone might "never have claimed a penny in their life" when reality is that everyone benefits directly and indirectly.
I wasn't really talking about the rights and wrongs of IHT specifically. I understand your point of view here. Its not one I agree with, but I see where it comes from.
Fiscal drag is a huge huge issue (don't get me started) but IHT is one where the thresholds have actually moved (not enough) since 2010. Most haven't at all.As in I have never been on benefits and have paid in a significant of money into the system, so basically I have paid my dues.
"I've paid my dues" comes across as a pretty entitled way of thinking about it. And i thought it was us millennials who were meant to be the entitled ones.
It's like Motorbility where thats running into issues (I have to be careful what I say on that as under an NDA), did you know that scheme buys almost 25% of ALL new cars sold in the UK?
Nearly 4m working age people receive health related benefits, up from 1.2m 5 years ago. Thats a huge increase and isn't a perception, it's fact.
The rise in economic inactivity in 18-24 year olds since the pandemic, is not perception, nor is the 18-64 year olds increase since 2019 (now over 11m in the band are not in paid work, over 9.5m are not unemployed, they are not looking for work or available to start any work).
The 'bill' as it stands will only get bigger especially as we live longer and expect there to be many more pensioners in the next 5-10 years (sadly in this country we have always funded state pension each year with that years income, there is no historic built up pot to use).
It's not about 'look below' as you put it, or who is or isn't a net contributor or taker (there will always be both, for a multitude of reasons and it can't work any other way). I'm 100% sure my wife is a net 'taker' based on the fact she pays almost no income tax, i'm not looking down on her! I'd envisage i'm a net contributor and she's certainly not looking up on me I can tell you! :-)
We've been here earlier this week, but if government spending has increased from broadly 700m to 1.3trn in recent years, something has to give as it's not as if anyone feels their lives are particularly better, there's still holes in the road, waiting lists, lack of availability for GP/Dentist etc.
Anyone who doesn't think we have a completely broken system from left to right and top to bottom needs to give their head a rather serious wobble.
To address your other points:
I don't disagree that the welfare bill is a lot and soon to be unsustainable. We have to look at the causes of this rather than thinking we can simply cut our way out of it. PIP was brought in as a cut compared to the old system (DLA). Its been cut 3 or 4 times at least since then. Each time it hasn't saved as much as they were hoping and the bill has continued to rise. We have to solve the structural issues in our society and economy if we want to reduce this. We have to bring back prevention and early intervention into health, education, crime drivers etc. solve the low pay issue, invest in making society function again and then we can start to reduce spend on these things, or rather it will naturally happen. We cant force it to happen when the conditions are so hostile.
We've cut our way into this situation thanks to 15 years of Austerity (sure start for example would have massively reduced this reliance). There is no way we are going to cut our way out of it.
The language used in the press, in government and evidenced on this thread (not you) is very much along the lines of looking below.0 -
Whilst it couldn't cause an issue that I can see It’d raise very little, I’m sure I’m not the only one that could and do find 101 other places to give money that would be better used than letting government waste even more!Covered End said:A quick win could be for the government to set up & "advertise" a simple online system where all the people that want to pay more tax can do so in a matter of clicks.
Presumably there is a reason why I've never heard it even suggested?
I agree with most you say there (especially sure start, glad it's not only me that recognizes this). however where I disagree quite considerably is "the welfare bill is a lot and soon to be unsustainable". Government spending which will include the welfare bill became unsustainable probably 15 years ago. There's a reason debt interest is now over 10% of tax receipts and despite a near doubling of expenditure almost nothing has improved. Cuts didn't solely lead us here, that path was already laid and the 2010 government doubled down and sped that up.cantersaddick said:
Again, not my point which was that the attitude of "I've paid therefore I am entitled to my pension and use of the NHS and all other services for the rest of my life" and using others take more as a justification to take what you need and moan about tax. I just think that entire attitude is wrong and the cost of those services show it to be bullshit irrelevant of what others use.Rob7Lee said:
I don't think it's perception about the size of the benefit costs and how it's increased over the last few years, over 300bn (now roughly running at 10%+ of GDP and a quarter of all government expenditure), we've all seen the latest in parliament on this, perception it is not.cantersaddick said:
Yes, that's the perception. And I get why people are inclined to look below them and blame people who are having a harder life than them therefore may take more. But people are massively undervaluing what they themselves take to make themselves feel better about it. If you've had 2+ kids and live to old age your NHS costs will likely be larger than their benefit bill. If a loved one has had cancer treatment (or major op, or even a hip replacement) it'll dwarf it. Many people who think they are net contributors because they only think about cash payments are not. They are net takers. Yes some may be net takers by more but the entitlement of "I've paid in my whole life" is just wrong.Rob7Lee said:
People (and government!) will focus on any element they think has become unfair or out of control. The benefit bill has become unmanageable in size and is set to even grow considerably more. It's also partly back to what we were saying the other day, 1 in 5 people of working age are not in (paid) work. Even after WWII and almost every year up until about 7 years ago it was about 4-5%.cantersaddick said:
But you have taken from the system in countless other ways as we all have. And will continue to do so at an increasing rate until you die. The focus on benefits is all wrong. That's just one small way that people take from the system over a lifetime.red10 said:cantersaddick said:I was more talking about the frankly ridiculous notion that someone might "never have claimed a penny in their life" when reality is that everyone benefits directly and indirectly.
I wasn't really talking about the rights and wrongs of IHT specifically. I understand your point of view here. Its not one I agree with, but I see where it comes from.
Fiscal drag is a huge huge issue (don't get me started) but IHT is one where the thresholds have actually moved (not enough) since 2010. Most haven't at all.As in I have never been on benefits and have paid in a significant of money into the system, so basically I have paid my dues.
"I've paid my dues" comes across as a pretty entitled way of thinking about it. And i thought it was us millennials who were meant to be the entitled ones.
It's like Motorbility where thats running into issues (I have to be careful what I say on that as under an NDA), did you know that scheme buys almost 25% of ALL new cars sold in the UK?
Nearly 4m working age people receive health related benefits, up from 1.2m 5 years ago. Thats a huge increase and isn't a perception, it's fact.
The rise in economic inactivity in 18-24 year olds since the pandemic, is not perception, nor is the 18-64 year olds increase since 2019 (now over 11m in the band are not in paid work, over 9.5m are not unemployed, they are not looking for work or available to start any work).
The 'bill' as it stands will only get bigger especially as we live longer and expect there to be many more pensioners in the next 5-10 years (sadly in this country we have always funded state pension each year with that years income, there is no historic built up pot to use).
It's not about 'look below' as you put it, or who is or isn't a net contributor or taker (there will always be both, for a multitude of reasons and it can't work any other way). I'm 100% sure my wife is a net 'taker' based on the fact she pays almost no income tax, i'm not looking down on her! I'd envisage i'm a net contributor and she's certainly not looking up on me I can tell you! :-)
We've been here earlier this week, but if government spending has increased from broadly 700m to 1.3trn in recent years, something has to give as it's not as if anyone feels their lives are particularly better, there's still holes in the road, waiting lists, lack of availability for GP/Dentist etc.
Anyone who doesn't think we have a completely broken system from left to right and top to bottom needs to give their head a rather serious wobble.
To address your other points:
I don't disagree that the welfare bill is a lot and soon to be unsustainable. We have to look at the causes of this rather than thinking we can simply cut our way out of it. PIP was brought in as a cut compared to the old system (DLA). Its been cut 3 or 4 times at least since then. Each time it hasn't saved as much as they were hoping and the bill has continued to rise. We have to solve the structural issues in our society and economy if we want to reduce this. We have to bring back prevention and early intervention into health, education, crime drivers etc. solve the low pay issue, invest in making society function again and then we can start to reduce spend on these things, or rather it will naturally happen. We cant force it to happen when the conditions are so hostile.
We've cut our way into this situation thanks to 15 years of Austerity (sure start for example would have massively reduced this reliance). There is no way we are going to cut our way out of it.
The language used in the press, in government and evidenced on this thread (not you) is very much along the lines of looking below.
And that for me is the conundrum, I agree about what we need to invest in, but we aren't even remotely close to balancing current expenditure, let alone everything that needs more money or even new money. We are already in that viscous circle downwards and no amount of extra tax is going to fix that, back to where I started over a week ago, unless you fix the economy and growth, we will continue a downward spiral on all levels for the rest of my lifetime. Or you make some extremely tough and unpopular decisions which government won't as they'd be out next time around.
As for looking below, probably agree with some press, although there's plenty of others that are looking in the opposite direction (wealth tax) - it cuts both ways, almost everyone feels aggrieved by something!0 -
I get what you are saying but maintain we aren't going to fix the economy or get growth until we fix the structural economic and societal problems.Rob7Lee said:
Whilst it couldn't cause an issue that I can see It’d raise very little, I’m sure I’m not the only one that could and do find 101 other places to give money that would be better used than letting government waste even more!Covered End said:A quick win could be for the government to set up & "advertise" a simple online system where all the people that want to pay more tax can do so in a matter of clicks.
Presumably there is a reason why I've never heard it even suggested?
I agree with most you say there (especially sure start, glad it's not only me that recognizes this). however where I disagree quite considerably is "the welfare bill is a lot and soon to be unsustainable". Government spending which will include the welfare bill became unsustainable probably 15 years ago. There's a reason debt interest is now over 10% of tax receipts and despite a near doubling of expenditure almost nothing has improved. Cuts didn't solely lead us here, that path was already laid and the 2010 government doubled down and sped that up.cantersaddick said:
Again, not my point which was that the attitude of "I've paid therefore I am entitled to my pension and use of the NHS and all other services for the rest of my life" and using others take more as a justification to take what you need and moan about tax. I just think that entire attitude is wrong and the cost of those services show it to be bullshit irrelevant of what others use.Rob7Lee said:
I don't think it's perception about the size of the benefit costs and how it's increased over the last few years, over 300bn (now roughly running at 10%+ of GDP and a quarter of all government expenditure), we've all seen the latest in parliament on this, perception it is not.cantersaddick said:
Yes, that's the perception. And I get why people are inclined to look below them and blame people who are having a harder life than them therefore may take more. But people are massively undervaluing what they themselves take to make themselves feel better about it. If you've had 2+ kids and live to old age your NHS costs will likely be larger than their benefit bill. If a loved one has had cancer treatment (or major op, or even a hip replacement) it'll dwarf it. Many people who think they are net contributors because they only think about cash payments are not. They are net takers. Yes some may be net takers by more but the entitlement of "I've paid in my whole life" is just wrong.Rob7Lee said:
People (and government!) will focus on any element they think has become unfair or out of control. The benefit bill has become unmanageable in size and is set to even grow considerably more. It's also partly back to what we were saying the other day, 1 in 5 people of working age are not in (paid) work. Even after WWII and almost every year up until about 7 years ago it was about 4-5%.cantersaddick said:
But you have taken from the system in countless other ways as we all have. And will continue to do so at an increasing rate until you die. The focus on benefits is all wrong. That's just one small way that people take from the system over a lifetime.red10 said:cantersaddick said:I was more talking about the frankly ridiculous notion that someone might "never have claimed a penny in their life" when reality is that everyone benefits directly and indirectly.
I wasn't really talking about the rights and wrongs of IHT specifically. I understand your point of view here. Its not one I agree with, but I see where it comes from.
Fiscal drag is a huge huge issue (don't get me started) but IHT is one where the thresholds have actually moved (not enough) since 2010. Most haven't at all.As in I have never been on benefits and have paid in a significant of money into the system, so basically I have paid my dues.
"I've paid my dues" comes across as a pretty entitled way of thinking about it. And i thought it was us millennials who were meant to be the entitled ones.
It's like Motorbility where thats running into issues (I have to be careful what I say on that as under an NDA), did you know that scheme buys almost 25% of ALL new cars sold in the UK?
Nearly 4m working age people receive health related benefits, up from 1.2m 5 years ago. Thats a huge increase and isn't a perception, it's fact.
The rise in economic inactivity in 18-24 year olds since the pandemic, is not perception, nor is the 18-64 year olds increase since 2019 (now over 11m in the band are not in paid work, over 9.5m are not unemployed, they are not looking for work or available to start any work).
The 'bill' as it stands will only get bigger especially as we live longer and expect there to be many more pensioners in the next 5-10 years (sadly in this country we have always funded state pension each year with that years income, there is no historic built up pot to use).
It's not about 'look below' as you put it, or who is or isn't a net contributor or taker (there will always be both, for a multitude of reasons and it can't work any other way). I'm 100% sure my wife is a net 'taker' based on the fact she pays almost no income tax, i'm not looking down on her! I'd envisage i'm a net contributor and she's certainly not looking up on me I can tell you! :-)
We've been here earlier this week, but if government spending has increased from broadly 700m to 1.3trn in recent years, something has to give as it's not as if anyone feels their lives are particularly better, there's still holes in the road, waiting lists, lack of availability for GP/Dentist etc.
Anyone who doesn't think we have a completely broken system from left to right and top to bottom needs to give their head a rather serious wobble.
To address your other points:
I don't disagree that the welfare bill is a lot and soon to be unsustainable. We have to look at the causes of this rather than thinking we can simply cut our way out of it. PIP was brought in as a cut compared to the old system (DLA). Its been cut 3 or 4 times at least since then. Each time it hasn't saved as much as they were hoping and the bill has continued to rise. We have to solve the structural issues in our society and economy if we want to reduce this. We have to bring back prevention and early intervention into health, education, crime drivers etc. solve the low pay issue, invest in making society function again and then we can start to reduce spend on these things, or rather it will naturally happen. We cant force it to happen when the conditions are so hostile.
We've cut our way into this situation thanks to 15 years of Austerity (sure start for example would have massively reduced this reliance). There is no way we are going to cut our way out of it.
The language used in the press, in government and evidenced on this thread (not you) is very much along the lines of looking below.
And that for me is the conundrum, I agree about what we need to invest in, but we aren't even remotely close to balancing current expenditure, let alone everything that needs more money or even new money. We are already in that viscous circle downwards and no amount of extra tax is going to fix that, back to where I started over a week ago, unless you fix the economy and growth, we will continue a downward spiral on all levels for the rest of my lifetime. Or you make some extremely tough and unpopular decisions which government won't as they'd be out next time around.
As for looking below, probably agree with some press, although there's plenty of others that are looking in the opposite direction (wealth tax) - it cuts both ways, almost everyone feels aggrieved by something!
If we look post WW2 when the debt to GDP ratio was much much worse than it is now (Peak 270% now ~90's ish). Despite the level of debt and fiscal situation there was massive investment into solving the issues facing society at the time. Massive levels of house building, large employment schemes (public works etc.) massive infrastructure building investment, massive investments in education, set up the NHS and the welfare state and much much more. These were enablers to growth. And over time they were able to unwind some of the public cost of them and then reduce the size of the state. What they didn't do was say " we cant solve any of these problems until we get growth to pay for it".
Yes Growth is what fixed the debt-GDP ratio but that was only possible by solving the structural problems and making strides for society. You have to set the foundation for growth or you will forever be stuck in this cycle.
Treat COVID, the financial crisis and Austerity as a war debt. Invest in the foundations for a productive economy and a functioning society and the growth will come. Anything other than that is a continuation of managed decline (whilst hoping a genie will pull some growth out their arse with nothing to actually enable it).2
