Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Finance] Rachel Reeves to reveal £20bn shortfall left by Conservative Government



Pavilionaire

Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
31,056
Bozza said:
In case I'm one of those you are targeting there - I'm certainly not party politicking at all here.

Both major parties ignored the economic elephant in the room during election campaigning, sticking their fingers in their ears when the IFS, and others, suggested we were speeding towards an unavoidable major decision point, and it would have been nice if that was acknowledged and addressed.
Click to expand...
I was reading the comments rather than looking at who was posting.

I agree with you that ALL the 3 major UK parties avoided the economic elephant in the room although all 3 had sound political reasons for doing so. But we haven't got a decade or two to waste before we join a Customs Union or EFTA - we've got spending requirements now that need funding.

Labour were naive in the campaign to categorically rule out rowing back on Brexit and should have stuck to the "we have no plans to rejoin" line.

I speak as a Remainer who has finally accepted Brexit has happened but we aren't saving £350 million a week, the money isn't going into the NHS, we haven't got better trade deals, there aren't better opportunities outside of the EU, the USA doesn't want a free trade deal with us, there is a shortage of labour, a lot more red tape and border aggro. It's all bad, it's all bollocks and this country - a global player, a nuclear power - cannot afford to be in the position we are in.
 




Weststander

Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
67,190
Withdean area
Greenbag50 said:
It’s my house that belongs to me, that I have paid for, so I have the right deterine what happens to it.
Same as anything that belongs to me that I want my kids to have.
Why TF should anyone have a part of what I have worked for?
If they want that, go and earn it like I did.
Grew up in housing estate in 80’s Glasgow. Comfortable now, as have worked hard to live in beautiful Sussex, and proud to work and provide for my family.
That’s why I don’t like grifters or governments who take more of money layer over layer.
Tax me once, then leave me alone.
Click to expand...

No point worrying about it just now. IHT changes may well not affect most estates.
 


LamieRobertson

LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
47,789
SHOREHAM BY SEA
Pavilionaire said:
I was reading the comments rather than looking at who was posting.

I agree with you that ALL the 3 major UK parties avoided the economic elephant in the room although all 3 had sound political reasons for doing so. But we haven't got a decade or two to waste before we join a Customs Union or EFTA - we've got spending requirements now that need funding.

Labour were naive in the campaign to categorically rule out rowing back on Brexit and should have stuck to the "we have no plans to rejoin" line.

I speak as a Remainer who has finally accepted Brexit has happened but we aren't saving £350 million a week, the money isn't going into the NHS, we haven't got better trade deals, there aren't better opportunities outside of the EU, the USA doesn't want a free trade deal with us, there is a shortage of labour, a lot more red tape and border aggro. It's all bad, it's all bollocks and this country - a global player, a nuclear power - cannot afford to be in the position we are in.
Click to expand...
Nicely put
 


B

Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
13,289
Cumbria
Greenbag50 said:
It’s my house that belongs to me, that I have paid for, so I have the right deterine what happens to it.
Same as anything that belongs to me that I want my kids to have.
Why TF should anyone have a part of what I have worked for?
If they want that, go and earn it like I did.
Grew up in housing estate in 80’s Glasgow. Comfortable now, as have worked hard to live in beautiful Sussex, and proud to work and provide for my family.
That’s why I don’t like grifters or governments who take more of money layer over layer.
Tax me once, then leave me alone.
Click to expand...
If you had inherited your house without 'having to work for it' - what would be your view then?

Your kids will be in that position in the future I guess? If there was no IHT then they won't have been 'taxed once' on their assets that you left them. That's really what inheritance tax is - it's a tax on the inheritors' gain - not a second tax on you.
 


B

Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
13,289
Cumbria
dsr-burnley said:
Surely the problem with ensuring that children' can't inherit parents' homes is (1) the multi-millionaire rich will still avoid it with family trusts and so forth, so it will be primarily aimed at the middle class, and (2) - and this is the biggie IMO - that there are already many millions of twenties and thirties scrambling round to buy homes which they are struggling to afford, and if parents can't leave houses to their children (or they can't afford to keep the house they've been left) then there will be even more people joining the scramble.
Click to expand...
"Can't inherit" is a long long way from "Pay some tax on what you inherit".
 




Pavilionaire

Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
31,056
Bodian said:
If you had inherited your house without 'having to work for it' - what would be your view then?

Your kids will be in that position in the future I guess? If there was no IHT then they won't have been 'taxed once' on their assets that you left them. That's really what inheritance tax is - it's a tax on the inheritors' gain - not a second tax on you.
Click to expand...
I think this shows what the real problem is. In this country politics is too much about "How can I personally be better off?" and not enough about "What is best for the society in which I live?"
 


rogersix

rogersix

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2014
8,158
Greenbag50 said:
I guess we have to agree to disagree then.
Not a big deal; ideological difference.
Work hard all life, pay taxes all life. Pay off house, which means my house now belongs to me, as I paid for it, which was bought with paying tax to buy house.
Now, when I die, I want to give my whole house that I own and have paid for over 30 years legally, to my children I have to give some of that house worth to the state.
All of my house worth, should go to who I want it to go. It is my house, bought and paid for, by me.
Not the states right to take a slice.
Click to expand...
the state provided you with the environment within which to generate your wealth
 


Weststander

Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
67,190
Withdean area
dsr-burnley said:
Surely the problem with ensuring that children' can't inherit parents' homes is (1) the multi-millionaire rich will still avoid it with family trusts and so forth, so it will be primarily aimed at the middle class, and (2) - and this is the biggie IMO - that there are already many millions of twenties and thirties scrambling round to buy homes which they are struggling to afford, and if parents can't leave houses to their children (or they can't afford to keep the house they've been left) then there will be even more people joining the scramble.
Click to expand...

85 year olds aren’t leaving wealth for their 55 year old offspring to get on the property ladder. That wealth is allowing their offspring to pay off their mortgages early and/or retire earlier or leaving a fantastic pot to grow until their retirement. Or they’re bypassing a generation by gifting huge sums to their grandchildren.

All exacerbating the haves and the have-littles.
 




Greenbag50

Greenbag50

Well-known member
Jun 1, 2016
460
Guinness Boy said:
It’s an example.

I’ve acknowledged earlier in the thread there were costs in that era. Serious ones. They shouldn’t have included Boris and his cronies guzzling fine wine and doing the Macarena.

I think MP’s expenses should be limited to 10% of their salary PA. If you want to serve your country then serve your country. Do you?
Click to expand...
Dancing is free, take 200k of the wine bill and that leaves you with 400bn to pay country’s wages
My point is, any government would have had to spend b’ns to keep the country afloat at that time.
That money would have been borrowed and would have to have been paid back:
 


rogersix

rogersix

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2014
8,158
Bozza said:
In case I'm one of those you are targeting there - I'm certainly not party politicking at all here.

Both major parties ignored the economic elephant in the room during election campaigning, sticking their fingers in their ears when the IFS, and others, suggested we were speeding towards an unavoidable major decision point, and it would have been nice if that was acknowledged and addressed.
Click to expand...
i doubt it is possible to win an election in britain whilst telling the public the truth
 






rogersix

rogersix

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2014
8,158
dsr-burnley said:
Surely the problem with ensuring that children' can't inherit parents' homes is (1) the multi-millionaire rich will still avoid it with family trusts and so forth, so it will be primarily aimed at the middle class, and (2) - and this is the biggie IMO - that there are already many millions of twenties and thirties scrambling round to buy homes which they are struggling to afford, and if parents can't leave houses to their children (or they can't afford to keep the house they've been left) then there will be even more people joining the scramble.
Click to expand...
by scramble, do you mean life?
 


Greenbag50

Greenbag50

Well-known member
Jun 1, 2016
460
rogersix said:
the state provided you with the environment within which to generate your wealth
Click to expand...
I’m not wealthy, I’m just hard working and aspirational.
I wanted a better life than what was on offer at the time: Council House. I didn’t go to university, I got 4 o levels.
It was in Thatchers Britain in 80’s, growing up in Scotland where they hated her, even more than down here.
Aspiration and opportunity. That’s what I grasped from that time and that’s what I instill in my kids today.
Not big state and take from those who want do well and achieve.
If you take from achievers and wealth creators, they will leave and take their wealth and creation somewhere it is appreciated and embraced as a force for good, not as a sponge to be continually squeezed.
 








Greenbag50

Greenbag50

Well-known member
Jun 1, 2016
460
Bodian said:
If you had inherited your house without 'having to work for it' - what would be your view then?

Your kids will be in that position in the future I guess? If there was no IHT then they won't have been 'taxed once' on their assets that you left them. That's really what inheritance tax is - it's a tax on the inheritors' gain - not a second tax on you.
Click to expand...
The house is legally owned by the owner and has been paid off at some point by parents.
I’m talking about an average house in an average street in Sussex, who when it’s time to pass on the family home to our kids, who we’ve lived their formtiave lives in that house, I don’t want them, when they sell it, to lose an even bigger chunk to the government. We’ve paid, NI, PAYE, car tax, etc on everting we buy our whole life, and we then have to make our children pay IHT on assets we have worked hard for when we die????
Why should they? It’s no ones money apart from theirs, if we say it is, as it is our asset!!

Children
 


D

dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,392
Bodian said:
Fair enough. But why say 'Can't inherit' at all? I'm not aware that anyone has suggested that upon death houses will be confiscated by the State? Seems quite an exaggeration to me.
Click to expand...
I apologise for confusing you. The suggestion (near certainty IMO) is that houses will be taxed at 40% or more from the next finance act, and that charge will cause many inheritors to be forced to sell and rejoin the housing market at the lower end, thus cluttering up the scramble for property yet more.

(If they relax the rules on housebuilding so that more houses can be built, then that particular problem may be reduced. But of course for everyone who gains because the house they want to buy costs half what it did, then there are more who lose because the house they live in is worth half what it was, and even more crucially, is worth less than their mortgage. No government has ever dared to try and fix this dilemma, even if they were able to do so.)
 


D

dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,392
I would expect them to charge IHT on the surplus in pension pots, incidentally. Frankly, I don't see why (if we must have IHT) pension pots shouldn't be included.
 




Weststander

Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
67,190
Withdean area
Greenbag50 said:
The house is legally owned by the owner and has been paid off at some point by parents.
I’m talking about an average house in an average street in Sussex, who when it’s time to pass on the family home to our kids, who we’ve lived their formtiave lives in that house, I don’t want them, when they sell it, to lose an even bigger chunk to the government. We’ve paid, NI, PAYE, car tax, etc on everting we buy our whole life, and we then have to make our children pay IHT on assets we have worked hard for when we die????
Why should they? It’s no ones money apart from theirs, if we say it is, as it is our asset!!

Children
Click to expand...

I’d be very surprised if people start paying IHT on this sort of sum.

IMG_4284.png
 




You must log in or register to reply here.
Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Share this page


Top
Link Here