Budget 2015

[Don Quixote]

Clegg looks rather unhappy.

 

[Bozza]

For Bozza cider duty down 2%

Get in!

I will now have to give very serious consideration as to who I vote for now.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Because it does nothing to address the wealth distribution problem we have in this country. I don't care that it is money that has already been taxed. What difference does it make if every £1 in tax is paid for by 80p income tax and 20p inheritance tax or 90p income tax and 10p inheritance tax?

Inheritance tax is by far the fairest tax of all as nobody is being penalised because the person paying it is dead!

But it is tax ON TAX. If you want to redistribute wealth then do it via income tax which happens once, don't do it via IHT. As things stand someone can earn £100,000, pay £45,000 in income tax and £2,000 in NI, then drop dead and pay a further £21,200 in IHT on the £53,000 that the government didn't touch first time around. So that's the government taking £68,200 - 68.2% - via 2 bites of the cherry. Totally wrong.

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

Hasn't the shadow chancellor normally been the first one to respond to the budget? Why is Milliband up? Has Balls bottled it or is my memory all ballsed up?

 

[Notters]

Don't be so soppy. Of course they'll be worth more than that. As it is, my kids stand to inherit all £375k plus 60% of anything on top. That's quite a lot of money to receive for doing fck all.

Not forgetting that it's £750k (?) for married couples.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Ohhhh..should I be sacking my accountant ..a digitalised tax account for self employed
Can't wait for the devil in the detail

Believe me, the whole accountancy profession is waiting for the detail.

 

[Simster]

But isn't it better to give your kids your money for doing fck all, than effectively giving it to a bunch of spotty herberts you have never met for doing fck all?

Yes, except that's not an accurate portrayal of how your taxes are spent.

See post #28 for a typical breakdown of how £4700 gets spent in this country. Of course there is waste and always will be, but I've got no doubt your kids would waste a portion of that £4700 if they pocketed it all instead. Probably more than the government, who are least accountable for what they spend.

 

[mikeyjh]

But it is tax ON TAX. If you want to redistribute wealth then do it via income tax which happens once, don't do it via IHT. As things stand someone can earn £100,000, pay £45,000 in income tax and £2,000 in NI, then drop dead and pay a further £21,200 in IHT on the £53,000 that the government didn't touch first time around. So that's the government taking £68,200 - 68.2% - via 2 bites of the cherry. Totally wrong.

Aren't most of the things that people inherit capital growth on houses or investments? Growth which is exponential and upon which zero tax has been paid.

 

[Notters]

But it is tax ON TAX. If you want to redistribute wealth then do it via income tax which happens once, don't do it via IHT. As things stand someone can earn £100,000, pay £45,000 in income tax and £2,000 in NI, then drop dead and pay a further £21,200 in IHT on the £53,000 that the government didn't touch first time around. So that's the government taking £68,200 - 68.2% - via 2 bites of the cherry. Totally wrong.

But if you take a huge chunk of peoples wages on income tax, they won't have any incentive to work harder, or, more likely, they'll feck off to another country.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Yes, except that's not an accurate portrayal of how your taxes are spent.

See post #28 for a typical breakdown of how £4700 gets spent in this country. Of course there is waste and always will be, but I've got no doubt your kids would waste a portion of that £4700 if they pocketed it all instead. Probably more than the government, who are least accountable for what they spend.

Won't a portion of that 4700 quid go to the Queen?

 

[Simster]

But it is tax ON TAX. If you want to redistribute wealth then do it via income tax which happens once, don't do it via IHT. As things stand someone can earn £100,000, pay £45,000 in income tax and £2,000 in NI, then drop dead and pay a further £21,200 in IHT on the £53,000 that the government didn't touch first time around. So that's the government taking £68,200 - 68.2% - via 2 bites of the cherry. Totally wrong.

Yes you've made that point already. And just because you've added numbers to your point, it doesn't mean I'm going to agree with your view that it is "totally wrong" at all.

Firstly, the government is only taking that second bite because you are not going to need it anymore. Secondly, the actual numbers are an irrelevance to me. It's about total tax collected. And personally, I'd rather the government collected it with an emphasis on inheritance tax over any tax on income.

And to reiterate, I only take this view because of the massive wealth distribution issue we have in this country. It is never addressed successfully by twiddling with the odd penny or two on income tax.

 

[Simster]

Won't a portion of that 4700 quid go to the Queen?

[emoji38]ol:

At least the government are accountable if it does.

 

[Bold Seagull]

But it is tax ON TAX. If you want to redistribute wealth then do it via income tax which happens once, don't do it via IHT. As things stand someone can earn £100,000, pay £45,000 in income tax and £2,000 in NI, then drop dead and pay a further £21,200 in IHT on the £53,000 that the government didn't touch first time around. So that's the government taking £68,200 - 68.2% - via 2 bites of the cherry. Totally wrong.

Well they wouldn't because their tax free IHT allowance is £325,000.

Anyone who has wealth does so as part of our economy and part of our society - no one has wealth without anyone else. A person who buys their house for £100k whose value is £500k on their passing has £325,000 to pass on tax free, but £175,000 is taxed, because a growth of value of £400,000 that has only accrued due to the strength of the economy, our economy.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Aren't most of the things that people inherit capital growth on houses or investments? Growth which is exponential and upon which zero tax has been paid.

But with a threshold of only £325,000 it's tax on their main home. Anything on top gets taxed at 40%. Where's the incentive to save there?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

But with a threshold of only £325,000 it's tax on their main home. Anything on top gets taxed at 40%. Where's the incentive to save there?

There isn't and that is a problem. As it stands right now it would be better for people to down size and p1ss any profit up the wall resulting in less tax for the government. In all likelihood many people are going to need their parents to die before they have any hope of getting on the housing ladder so it could be argued that IHT levels kicking so low could stunt the housing market.

I guess Simster will be happy with the investigation into 'Deeds of Variance' though - one way out possibly to be closed.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

I've never given it much thought. It's a moral issue for me.

Fair play to you, there aren't many who will donate all their inheritance to the REMF

 

[Dick Head]

12:30 today.

[tweet]578138988860555265[/tweet]

Really looking forward to another economic tour-de-force from the current government which could give them the tailwind required to put the Downing Street removal men on hold for at least another five years.

Cut [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] and he bleeds blue (and white).

 

[mikeyjh]

But with a threshold of only £325,000 it's tax on their main home. Anything on top gets taxed at 40%. Where's the incentive to save there?

You were talking about tax on tax, I am pointing out that capital growth isn't taxed prior to the death. So basically the inheritor benefits from entirely unearned income, of course it should be taxed.

 

[Bold Seagull]

There isn't and that is a problem. As it stands right now it would be better for people to down size and p1ss any profit up the wall resulting in less tax for the government. In all likelihood many people are going to need their parents to die before they have any hope of getting on the housing ladder so it could be argued that IHT levels kicking so low could stunt the housing market.

I guess Simster will be happy with the investigation into 'Deeds of Variance' though - one way out possibly to be closed.

Yes, far better to p1ss any profit up the wall than give your estate £325,000 and 60% of whatever else thereafter. That will show them Westdene, that will show them!!!

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Surely raising the threshold would help lessen the effects of the tax. And that's a good thing right?

Missed most of speech, did he do this to £1m as rumoured?