Budget 2015

[Moshe Gariani]

have a nice day

Sorry. Thanks, you too.

 

[sten_super]

It is the biggest single iniquity that ordinary people have to suffer. A whole generation are being blighted by the need for both parents to work and then still only to line further the pockets of an already advantaged landlord.

The problem is further exacerbated because the problem will perpetuate. That is why inheritance tax is so important. If anything, I think the level at which it kicks in should be lowered, not raised, although clearly there needs to be a bit more wiggle room to allow the liquidation of assets such as houses.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Sorry. Thanks, you too.

Noted and thank you

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I favour a number of measures
limiting landlord licenses is to make more property available for owner occupation
to counter the advantages of the greater spending power of landlords over first time buyers
as I said I would also introduce rent controls
and build dedicated student accomodation to free up more supply

Taxing landlords will be a start. Stop them offsetting interest as an expense. This will need to be set up in law as a specific case so it doesn't impinge on other business though.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Taxing landlords will be a start. Stop them offsetting interest as an expense. This will need to be set up in law as a specific case so it doesn't impinge on other business though.

If you hit the private market ..surely you need to do something about the availability of 'social housing' first ..I seem to remember reading some when over the last year about Housing Association funding being cut.

 

[Ernest]

To raise funds I'd tax inheritances at 100%, why should someone get rich purely because their father or someone did well ? It would encourage people to spend instead of tucking it away in trust funds for the likes of Osborne to live off and people would then have to live off their own talents instead of Daddy's money.

It's time for different thinking instead of the same old money go round

 

[Simster]

To raise funds I'd tax inheritances at 100%, why should someone get rich purely because their father or someone did well ? It would encourage people to spend instead of tucking it away in trust funds for the likes of Osborne to live off and people would then have to live off their own talents instead of Daddy's money.

It's time for different thinking instead of the same old money go round

When I started this whole inheritance tax debate earlier in the week, I was unaware of the ease in which the super rich could hide from this tax (as well as all the other ones). But I do refuse to believe we couldn't close at least some of these loopholes. It would be nice if the Royals were taxed too, rather than being allowed to opt out on a whim.

 

[beorhthelm]

To raise funds I'd tax inheritances at 100%, why should someone get rich purely because their father or someone did well ? It would encourage people to spend instead of tucking it away in trust funds for the likes of Osborne to live off and people would then have to live off their own talents instead of Daddy's money.

would that be 100% above a threshold or 100% on all. i found it odd earlier in the thread here when someone suggested a £1 threshold one of our resident lefties said that's wouldn't be fair. but i reckon if one is in favor of IHT on ideological grounds and to see no one benefit from the previous generation, then a 100% rate and or no threshold is the logical conclusion.

we could close loopholes, after all they have all been put in place in the first place. they arent clever tricks, just processes following what the rules say cant and cant be done to make provision for passing on an estate. ive always found it odd that they exist (either get rid of the tax or get rid of the exemptions). trust fund are a separate matter, that's a vehicle for money management, and you dont need a trust fund to be living off your parents either.

 

[vegster]

excise duty usually takes effect at midnight after the budget announced. a penny will be absorbed by the brewery and the publican, i wouldn't expect to see many places drop their price.

You are kidding me right ? I'm expecting 0.27 % off my next pint.

 

[drew]

The problem with IHT, is that if you are seriously rich your accountant with arrange your affairs (via trusts, planning, offshore etc) so that you pay nothing. If you are not wealthy it doesn't affect you, so it tends to target people who are to an extent stuck in the middle.

Are you saying that the 5/6% of estates that pay IHT represent the middle. If so, it's a bloody small middle!

What's taking the piss is paying for the fallout of banker's greed with the money from dead people. £325K threshold frozen for 6 years, twice as many Estates paying IHT as prior to 2009. I'm going to stop talking about this now, it's a marmite issue.

Where do you get your statistics from? The figures on the Government website only include estates upto 2012

If the dead people don't like it they should make representations to their MP. Oh, they can't, that's because the money is not being taken from dead people, a point you seem to ignore. Also, the threshold for a married couple is £650k assuming the estate is left to the surviving spouse (irrespective of when the first spouse passed away).

From the "man in the street's" view (i.e the poor), there really seems to be bugger all in this budget. Upping the tax threshold by £200 a year really only equates to having pennies in your pocket back. That said, I'm not entirely sure I know what I was expecting from this. The tax free first £1000 in savings is nice, but only if you've got £1000 to save. Those of us living on minimum wage, or less in my case, really need something. I'd vote for any party who is willing and able to put into practice a "living wage" as opposed to a "minimum" wage.

To get maximum benefit of the £1000 interest you are allowed to earn means, based for example on the Natwest Advantage Private Reserve Savings account (0.75%) , that would have to have over £133,333 saved! So, assuming a large proportion of the population have this money lying around then yes, it is a good thing!!!!!

~2% of the workforce are employed on zero hours contracts. For many of these people, it is an arrangement which suits them very well. This 'issue' seems to get more attention than it deserves. Perhaps because it suits the Red Ed agenda?

Where are the stats/polls that back up this argument that many find it suits them?

I have no real interest in Inheritance Tax - it has never affected me nor do I think it ever will.

However I think your argument falls down slightly in that the tax is paid on the estate. If the tax were paid by the person or persons inheriting it, then by dividing the estate up between multiple recipients, the taxation due would be reduced as each person would have a tax-free limit to 'use'.

By taxing the estate as whole, before the proceeds are divided, it doesn't really seem to be that those who inherit the estate are paying the tax.

Err, how does that work then? Surely the fact that the tax is deducted from the estate before distribution merely equates to the beneficiaries contributing to the tax pro rata to what percentage of the estate they receive. Surely legally the estate belongs to the beneficiaries but it just hasn't yet been distributed!

Completely disagree, the Tories inherited a country on its knees in 79 and brought it back from the dead in the 80's. Of course you can argue the 80's were boom/bust economics, but when Labour took over they inherited a far more prosperous economy than what they had left.

Fast forward to 2010, the Tories inherited a completely mismanaged economy on the brink of economic ruin and have started and developed faster growth than anyone else in the euro zone. So yes, I think it's fair to say they have a much better track record.

However, when considering the NHS, they seem to have an unhealthy obsession with competition, which just does not work.

EDIT. Apologies Bold Seagull, was on my phone and missed your last para - I would agree it will largely be idealology, and who gets their message across. I would have thought the budget might have been 'spun' towards the NHS to counteract the 'Tories can't manage health' argument, but it wasn't.

Very simplistic to dismiss the first 10 years of the last Labour government and then rely on the mess created by the bankers over the last two years of that administration.

Funny sense of entitlement ?? Yes, how strange that someone would want to leave their estate to their kids in full without any extra tax being levied on it for the government to spunk away on foreign aid , christ your arrogance defies belief

Thanks for the education, I didn't realise that foreign aid was what all our taxes were spent on!

It's £650k. £325k each.

My bad. I misread another post. I should know as have handled an estate as an executor.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Very simplistic to dismiss the first 10 years of the last Labour government and then rely on the mess created by the bankers over the last two years of that administration.

.

But initially they benefited from inheriting the frugal policies of the previous government, rather than having to deal with a complete mess. How do you explain selling the gold reserves?

Sorry, but whilst there are things Labour are stronger at IMO, the economy certainly is not one of them.

 

[drew]

But initially they benefited from inheriting the frugal policies of the previous government, rather than having to deal with a complete mess. How do you explain selling the gold reserves?

Sorry, but whilst there are things Labour are stronger at IMO, the economy certainly is not one of them.

Get a bit bored with this continual ref to the gold reserves which in the grand scheme of things is pretty insignificant. The situation in 2010 was due to a global recession, not due to the mismanagement of the economy by labour.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Get a bit bored with this continual ref to the gold reserves which in the grand scheme of things is pretty insignificant. The situation in 2010 was due to a global recession, not due to the mismanagement of the economy by labour.

In one deed it showed how ignorant of the financial world Brown was.
As with a candidate that turns up an hour late for an interview munching on a Big Mac you know before they open their mouth it's over

 

[drew]

In one deed it showed how ignorant of the financial world Brown was.
As with a candidate that turns up an hour late for an interview munching on a Big Mac you know before they open their mouth it's over

Another view of the reasons for the sale!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...own-sold-britains-gold-at-a-knock-down-price/

 

[Kevlar]

Taxing landlords will be a start. Stop them offsetting interest as an expense. This will need to be set up in law as a specific case so it doesn't impinge on other business though.

open to all suggestions . i am not an idealist.whatever works
but it should be obvious to all that the current situation is not working well
for tenants and young people on average earnings seeking to own their own house.
i think we need a package of measures which i elaborated above.
but ultimately government has to favour tenants and would be first time buyers
over landlords and property speculators.
for as long as housing is a lucrative investment those with more spending power
we buy more of it ,those with less will lose out
the ratio of owner occupation will continue to fall if prices continue to rise
faster than earnings.
without governance to address the disadvantage of those with less money
the current trend will continue.
as ever there is no simple supply side solutions

 

[jimbob5]

open to all suggestions . i am not an idealist.whatever works
but it should be obvious to all that the current situation is not working well
for tenants and young people on average earnings seeking to own their own house.
i think we need a package of measures which i elaborated above.
but ultimately government has to favour tenants and would be first time buyers
over landlords and property speculators.
for as long as housing is a lucrative investment those with more spending power
we buy more of it ,those with less will lose out
the ratio of owner occupation will continue to fall if prices continue to rise
faster than earnings.
without governance to address the disadvantage of those with less money
the current trend will continue.
as ever there is no simple supply side solutions

The risk element of buying property has gone due to the measures Bank Of England who pretend to act independently of the government.

 

[Hastings gull]

To raise funds I'd tax inheritances at 100%, why should someone get rich purely because their father or someone did well ? It would encourage people to spend instead of tucking it away in trust funds for the likes of Osborne to live off and people would then have to live off their own talents instead of Daddy's money.

It's time for different thinking instead of the same old money go round

I wonder what your own situation is and how you can come up so glibly with this, which goes against what millions hold to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If you have a family, would you advocate this for yourself - somehow I doubt it! Your house would go to the State, along with all your savings, though after what you said, you would presumably not have any, and your car, of course. People work for themselves and their families, whether you like it or not, and the vast majority, whom you would penalise, do not have Trust funds etc and look to pass on their hard-earned wealth to their children. I might also add that what you claim is not mutually exclusive -you can have daddy's money AND live off your own talents.

 

[somerset]

To raise funds I'd tax inheritances at 100%, why should someone get rich purely because their father or someone did well ? It would encourage people to spend instead of tucking it away in trust funds for the likes of Osborne to live off and people would then have to live off their own talents instead of Daddy's money.

It's time for different thinking instead of the same old money go round

You ignorance is astounding, over 60% of the house of commons never went anywhere near a fee paying school. In fact approx half of conservative MP's didn't either.......so using this as a correlation to your assumptions about silver spoon ruling classes, you appear to be off the mark.

 

[nicko31]

George is still fooling everyone he has the finances under control, last quarters deficit was £26 billion.

Oh what's a couple more billion between mates, its only money....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33393480