Darling doubles Inheritance tax threshold

[BUTTERBALL]

The rich get richer in my opinion. We would have been better investing more in health and education. Cancer patients are treated appalingly in the NHS and made to pay for their own parking, what about sorting out the priorities?!!

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

If a married couple own a house as tenants in common then each spouse has a £300k IHT allowance , so by raising the IHT threshold to £700k for a couple means an increase of only £100k , or £50k to a single person. This is paltry when the pledge from the Tories was to raise it to £1M regardless of marital status. I suppose the extra revenue raised by closing tax loopholes will be diverted to keeping troops in Afghanistan and paying for more managers in the NHS.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

and more regulatory frameworks and researches into banning anything anyone enjoys any more

 

[clapham_gull]

They're all a bunch of ****s

They will find some way of stitching everyone up.

Have you thought of running for Parliament ?, I think slogans a vote winner.

 

[Gazwag]

IT isnt my best area by a long way but I cant see what the benefit is at the moment - dont assets transfer from spouse to spouse IT free on the first death, so when the second person dies they go back to the lower allowance - so no difference to now.

In my eyes the CGT changes will effect people more

 

[The Auditor]

Labour have nicked a Tory policy. FACTOID.

And why does no one think its the other way around ?

I idea has been in the Labour think tank for ages ...but why play the card when it raises easy tax ...last week the Tories forced labours hand earlier than they would have liked

 

[The Large One]

He flounced after you patronised - it was as if you'd mentioned superglue and desert orchid in the same sentence.

Yep, and I 'patronised' after he gobshited.

Funny old world, innit?

 

[Buzzer]

IT isnt my best area by a long way but I cant see what the benefit is at the moment - dont assets transfer from spouse to spouse IT free on the first death, so when the second person dies they go back to the lower allowance - so no difference to now.

In my eyes the CGT changes will effect people more

Yes, you are right. Labour are simply giving people by right what they could have achieved anyway by spending a few hundred pounds on tax planning. Smokes and mirrors.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Apparently this idea was around at the budget (or maybe last years PBR) but Gordon decided against it (don't even think that it was Tony's decision, GB never let TB have anything to do with the treasury). Funny that he now decides that it is worthy of inclusion. No matter what TLO thinks, the vast majority of the public will think that Labour has stolen a tory policy. That fact may matter little when it comes to election day, but the tide is turning a little. The Government aren't leading, but responding.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Cancer patients are treated appalingly in the NHS and made to pay for their own parking, what about sorting out the priorities?!!

As someone who has some knowledge in this area and is also currently being treated for cancer by the NHS, I couldn't disagree with you more on this point. You don't have to look far to see that cancer clearly is a top priority within the NHS and my treatment since being first diagnosed has been first class with seemless coordination between the various hospital departments (eg oncology, GI and hepatology) who are dealing with my case.
So everyone who visits the hospital by car has to pay for parking - why should oncology patients be treated differently? To be honest, I often get the bus as I find it's less stressful (which is good for my condition as well).

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

IT isnt my best area by a long way but I cant see what the benefit is at the moment - dont assets transfer from spouse to spouse IT free on the first death, so when the second person dies they go back to the lower allowance - so no difference to now.

In my eyes the CGT changes will effect people more

Yes, you are right. Labour are simply giving people by right what they could have achieved anyway by spending a few hundred pounds on tax planning. Smokes and mirrors.

I think you'll find that from today the surviving party and any existing widows/widowers/parties from civil partnerships will be able to leave any unused part of the combined allowance free of IHT - ie up to £600K currently.

Abolition of CGT tapered relief could impact some businesses (eg 'sole traders' etc) if they're being sold on but it depends how the business is set up. Mine is a Ltd Company so I don't see an issue at the moment.

 

[Gazwag]

I think you'll find that from today the surviving party and any existing widows/widowers/parties from civil partnerships will be able to leave any unused part of the combined allowance free of IHT - ie up to £600K currently.

Abolition of CGT tapered relief could impact some businesses (eg 'sole traders' etc) if they're being sold on but it depends how the business is set up. Mine is a Ltd Company so I don't see an issue at the moment.

Yeah I can see that now re IT, but CGT will effect more than just business owners, I would expect a lot of shares being sold in the lead up to 5th April taking gains at a lower rate.

 

[Simster]

And why does no one think its the other way around ?

I idea has been in the Labour think tank for ages ...but why play the card when it raises easy tax ...last week the Tories forced labours hand earlier than they would have liked

OK, the Tories forced the Labour party's hand on the issue. The thing is, I don't actually have a problem with this and it annoys me that the media and Tory party are demonising this turn of events (it would be same if the boot were on the other foot). What is wrong with saying "unlike most of your policies, yes this policy of yours is quite a good one and so we're going to implement it"?

So it's actually quite a brave decision by Labour to steal this Tory policy, IMO.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

very sensible stuff from Labour... the Tories have one very simple and very popular giveaway idea that, whilst being highly emotive, doesn't cost too much in lost tax revenue - why let them even have a chance of gaining ground based on one idea when you can just pull the rug from under their feet so easily?

 

[Buzzer]

very sensible stuff from Labour... the Tories have one very simple and very popular giveaway idea that, whilst being highly emotive, doesn't cost too much in lost tax revenue - why let them even have a chance of gaining ground based on one idea when you can just pull the rug from under their feet so easily?

Are you TLO's script writer? Every newspaper of every political persuasion seems to view this as the Tories with the upperhand and accuses the Govt of desperation. Dream on, Moshe, dream on.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Are you TLO's script writer? Every newspaper of every political persuasion seems to view this as the Tories with the upperhand and accuses the Govt of desperation. Dream on, Moshe, dream on.

newspapers like a "story" and are happy to make them up... the boring old truth that Labour continue to do a competent job and, having cracked the financial trust issue should now stay in power indefinitely, isn't a very exciting story...

much more interesting to talk up the chances of the upper class twits for a while

 

[London Calling]

A sensible approach by the Government on three points:

1. The threshold has been set so only 3% of homes are now above the level. But this initiative only losses 1.5 bn in tax unlike the tories 3 bn. So we have a policy that great on winning votes but maintains good budgets. The Tory plan went too far it would have cost too much and ultimately was driven by supporting "the wealthy".

2. The Government would have looked at this before, it would have been bounced around the Treasury possibly even the Cabinet. Yes it was clearly announced now to counter the Tories Conference announcement. But Labour have played good poker here and the Conservatives have been extremely nieve!!

3. There is some debate on here that the rules may have not changed that much, however, I would say this, now it is is a clear entitlement, no longer do people have to use expensive lawyers/accountants to get around the tax. Figures show, that the majority people - ordinary people - did not understand or have the inclination to set up trusts etc. So here again a good policy for the whole electorate.

Back to Parties nicking ideas, well yes. But look at the Conservative conference they are no longer the "Party of lower taxes", just the same level of tax but distributed differently. We have a system now, where changes are incremental. Where Policies are designed, to maintain the share of the vote in the marginals.

 

[Curious Orange]

Labour continue to do a competent job and, having cracked the financial trust issue

So they'll be putting back the money into pension schemes that they stole a few years back then?

 

[London Calling]

So they'll be putting back the money into pension schemes that they stole a few years back then?

Again, for most people this goes over their heads, is it really the Government fault,or in fact should you and we be blaming the businesses for recinding on their pension packages.

 

[Buzzer]

Again, for most people this goes over their heads, is it really the Government fault,or in fact should you and we be blaming the businesses for recinding on their pension packages.

blaming the Government for removing tax credits on dividends. Quite clearly.

That and FRS17 forcing notional deficits on pension funds onto balance sheets.

Not gone over my head.