withdeanwombat
Well-known member
Tories.Unelectable.Synonym.
Hooray!
Hooray!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Same old Tories...
- Thread starter Moshe Gariani
- Start date
Papa Lazarou
Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
Whereas 20 years ago it was Labour.Unelectable.
So, things change.
However, it will always be; Lib Dems.Social Misfits.Unelectable.
The Large One
Who's Next?
For me, that last sentence is the key to what would be worrying the Tories the most.See - they've targetted me directly with this one
I was more using this as an example of the way Labour like to increase taxes indirectly rather than directly via income tax / NI.
If you are a fan of the environmental taxation route then these sort of increases will be automatic in every budget for the forseeable future, but it's the gradual drip drip of increased taxation that's my issue (not a massive issue, but one all the same).
One thing I think has happened in British politics is that the 3 main parties have become more similar than they've ever been, and I'd say that you'd get much the same sort of economy and welfare state whichever of the current big 3 are in power at present.
So, that would suggest the Labour party will stay in power for the forseeable future, as they are the safe option - i.e. the 'devil' you know.
The three parties (or at least Labour and Tory) are very similar in the way they present politics (though not their policies), and for that you can thank the likes of Peter Mandelsson. The Tories, in that sense, are still 10 years behind Labour. What we used to have were politicians who presented themselves as all-knowing, all-confident Aldermanic figures whom you questioned at your peril. Whether they were worthy of that approach is another matter. Nowadays, so many of them, especially those at the top end of their party, merely come across as manicured, inch-perfect, all-smiling robotic advertising executives.
BBC's Question Time, for instance, is shit not so much for the format, but more because all the political guests merely re-gurgitate their party's policies, rather than have a proper, informed personal political debate.
Moshe Gariani
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2005
- 12,205
- Thread starter
- #64
:slightlywearybutstillabitearlytostartwork: nothing to do with jealousy... all to do with wanting to live in a more fair society in which resources are allocated to public services so that more children (NB Mile Oak) get a decent opportunity in life and those who need help in adulthood are better cared for...
withdeanwombat
Well-known member
Whereas 20 years ago it was Labour.Unelectable.
So, things change.
However, it will always be; Lib Dems.Social Misfits.Unelectable.
Indeed!...............and when the Lib Dems were merely the Libs they were a lamentable shower.The more things change....sigh.
Lokki 7
WSU
But throwing money at the problem is not the answer, regardless of where that money comes from, just look at the NHS for confirmation of that.
Moshe Gariani said:
A privileged minority that already funds the social services through their enterprise and hard work.
The Large One
Who's Next?
The similarities between what happened to Labour 25 years ago and the Tories 10 years a go are remarkable.Whereas 20 years ago it was Labour.Unelectable.
So, things change.
However, it will always be; Lib Dems.Social Misfits.Unelectable.
For me, the principle difference is that Neil Kinnock, took on the hard left. The hard left felt their best way to take on Thatcher was to do so within the rank and file of the Labour Party, rather than leave and splinter off into other new parties. Ultimately, Labour took another 12 years to shake off its 'unelectable' tag that Middle England had placed upon it (although having said that, it's highly likely that Labour would have won any general election between 1993 and 1997).
On the other hand, no Tory leader has ever taken on the traditionalists within the hard right since they lost power. Those who are in the hard right either made noises from the back of the room, or left and joined the likes of UKIP or the Referendum Party or even the BNP. So the revolution that the Tories need and that Labour once had appears to be making no signs of happening. For one, Thatcher's legacy still hangs over them like a spectre.
So its my job (assuming I'm what you consider wealthy) to pay for that out of money my parents already paid tax on?
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
Isn't it easier to avoid inheritance tax if one is cash rich (cash gifts and so on), as opposed to solely asset rich? Is the 'wealth gap' really being addressed?
Moshe Gariani
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2005
- 12,205
- Thread starter
- #70
yes
if you as an individual receive large amounts (>£300,000) of cash from anywhere then Chancellor Moshe wants his slice... the fact that you've done nothing personally to earn that money doesn't make me any less keen to collect revenue from you so that I can pay for much needed public services....
Moshe Gariani
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2005
- 12,205
- Thread starter
- #71
both of those statements are true
The Large One
Who's Next?
Virtually every financial transaction is taxed - Death Duties included. For instance, you are taxed at source for working for a living. Then you are taxed for buying products, you are taxed for selling products. And so on.
So, upon your parents' death, you would have inherited £x,000. Under any circumstances in any country, you would be taxed for it. Or at least, you would be if the estate in the UK was worth more than £250,000.
Lokki 7
WSU
If you are going to "address the wealth gap" surely it should be from the perspective of making the poor better off, and not the rich poorer?
The Large One
Who's Next?
Ok - I disagree...probably as I'm not a socialist
It's got f*** all to do with Socialism. Inheritance Tax was introduced in the UK in 1796.
Last edited:
Moshe Gariani
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2005
- 12,205
- Thread starter
- #76
indeed - which is why you need to collect tax revenues to fund public services...
I know but what I was trying to get to was that people don't realize many taxes are on goods/assets they have already paid tax on.
Inheritence tax whilst in theory is all well and good - ie cutting the cream off the top, in actuality doesn't work in a housing market that continues to pile on the pounds...which is what the government want - isn't it?
The Large One
Who's Next?
Inheritance Tax (United Kingdom)
Taxation in the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, Inheritance Tax was first introduced as a tax on estates in England and Wales over a certain value from 1796, then called legacy, succession and estate duties. The value changed over time and the scope of estate duty was extended. By 1857 estates worth over £20 were taxable but duty was rarely collected on estates valued under £1500. Death duties were introduced in 1894, and for the next century were effective in breaking up large estates.
Inheritance Tax
Estate duty was replaced in 1975 by Capital Transfer Tax, which was rebranded Inheritance Tax (IHT) in 1986. Partly due to the simple and widely-used methods which are available to avoid it, Inheritance Tax is a small, but by no means insignificant, revenue generator for the UK government, raising around £2,000,000,000 in 2001 and £3,600,000,000 in 2006.
For the 6 April 2007 to 5 April 2008 tax year, the IHT rate is 40% on the value, at death, of an individual's tax estate over £300,000. This figure is known as the nil rate band, and rises annually.
In the 2007 budget report the Chancellor announced that this is to rise to £350,000 by 2010. This is to take into account the sharp rise in house prices in the united Kingdom over the past few years.
Tax estate
The tax estate includes:
1. all of the deceased's assets, whether real estate or personal estate, and includes even small-value items such as the contents of his or her home;
2. any gifts made by the deceased in the seven years before death;
3. some assets which were not owned by the deceased but which are affected by the death (the most common example is a life interest in a trust, technically known as an interest-in-possession);
4. gifts with reservation of benefit. These are gifts where the legal ownership passes to the recipient. However, the donor continues to enjoy the benefit of the asset either rent free or at reduced cost. The seven year period outlined above does not begin counting down whilst a gift is considered to be under a reservation of benefit.
There is also a charge on "lifetime chargeable transfers" into certain trusts (and a recalculation of those charges if the giver dies within seven years), and trusts themselves have an inheritance tax regime. See Taxation of trusts (United Kingdom).
Deductions
There are deductions for:
1. all assets left to a spouse or civil partner. However the exemption is limited to £55,000 where the deceased is domiciled in some part of UK and the surviving spouse/civil partner is domiciled outside of the UK;
2. all assets left to a charity registered in the UK.
3. some political donations;
4. gifts of up to £3000 in total in a given yea
5. "small gifts" of up to £250 made to separate people;
6. some business assets (under Business Property Relief or "BPR");
7. some farmland (under Agricultural Property Relief or "APR").
8. gifts made out of income that do not impact upon the standard of living of an individual.
9. gifts made in contemplation of a marriage or civil partnership. The level of this deduction varies according to the relationship of the donor to person marrying or entering into a civil partnership.
Minimising IHT
In order to avoid IHT, many people in the IHT bracket practise some or all of the following avoidance measures:
* Outright gifts to another individual made during a person's lifetime are known as "potentially exempt transfers" or PETs. They are taxable if the person dies within seven years, but have the potential to become exempt from tax once seven years have gone by with the giver still alive. If the giver survives three years, the rate of tax on the PET reduces by one fifth (to 32%) and then by a further fifth on each of the subsequent anniversaries (to 24%, 16% then 8%) reaching 0% after seven years. This is known as inheritance tax taper relief (not to be confused with the better-known capital gains tax taper relief).
* Gifting assets to a trust fund before death. (Some gifts of this kind, however, are disadvantageous as they amount to lifetime chargeable transfers on which IHT is paid straight away if more than £300,000 is gifted. This applies to many more trusts than previously under legislation announced in the 2006 budget. See Taxation of trusts (United Kingdom).)
* Certain special types of trust, such as Discounted Gift Trusts and Gift & Loan Trusts, which allow for some planning whilst retaining some access to capital/income.
* Charitable giving, which is IHT exempt.
* Lifetime gifts within certain limits are completely exempt. These include any number of "small gifts" (up to £250), an annual amount of £3,000, all regular gifts from surplus income, and some wedding gifts.
* Upon death, passing non-taxable assets to the next generation (or to a discretionary trust for the benefit of the whole family) and therefore NOT to the spouse. To many people this seems counter-intuitive because they are aware that gifts to a spouse are IHT exempt and should therefore be maximised. However, if something is non-taxable on the first death it should not go to the spouse as it will merely increase his or her tax estate upon his or her later death. (The nil-band discretionary trust, discussed below, is an example of this principle in action.)
Nil rate bands
A person who has a tax estate less than the nil rate band may consider himself or herself outside the IHT bracket. However a couple with estates of less than double the nil rate band cannot consider themselves outside the IHT bracket unless they have taken specific action to ensure they use both nil rate bands. If they do the natural thing - the first of them to die leaving everything to the survivor - then they have effectively wasted that first nil rate band. The survivor will die owning everything, with only his or her one nil rate band to set against it.
The most common means of ensuring that both nil rate bands are used is called a nil band discretionary trust (now more properly known as NRB Relevant Property Trust*). This is an arrangement in both wills which says that whoever is the first to die leaves their nil band to a discretionary trust for the family, and not to the survivor. The survivor can still benefit from those assets if needed, but they are not part of that survivor's tax estate.
For the above to work it is important that each partner has sufficient assets in their own name to cover the nil-band. Many married couples do not have sufficient spare assets to fund the NRB relevant property trust without using the matrimonial home. The home will normally be in joint names so the will needs to make provision for using the deceased's interest in the home in relation to the relevant property trust. If assets are all in one name, or in joint names, the arrangement may not work. This is often described, slightly inaccurately, as "equalisation".
A gift is not valid for IHT purposes if the giver retains any benefit from it. There are quite complex and rigid rules which establish whether the giver has retained a benefit, and where there is a retention of benefit all IHT advantages from the gift are effectively lost.
* Finance Act 2006
Pre-owned assets
The Finance Act 2004 introduced an income tax regime known as pre-owned asset tax which aims to reduce the use of common methods of IHT avoidance.
Taxation in the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, Inheritance Tax was first introduced as a tax on estates in England and Wales over a certain value from 1796, then called legacy, succession and estate duties. The value changed over time and the scope of estate duty was extended. By 1857 estates worth over £20 were taxable but duty was rarely collected on estates valued under £1500. Death duties were introduced in 1894, and for the next century were effective in breaking up large estates.
Inheritance Tax
Estate duty was replaced in 1975 by Capital Transfer Tax, which was rebranded Inheritance Tax (IHT) in 1986. Partly due to the simple and widely-used methods which are available to avoid it, Inheritance Tax is a small, but by no means insignificant, revenue generator for the UK government, raising around £2,000,000,000 in 2001 and £3,600,000,000 in 2006.
For the 6 April 2007 to 5 April 2008 tax year, the IHT rate is 40% on the value, at death, of an individual's tax estate over £300,000. This figure is known as the nil rate band, and rises annually.
In the 2007 budget report the Chancellor announced that this is to rise to £350,000 by 2010. This is to take into account the sharp rise in house prices in the united Kingdom over the past few years.
Tax estate
The tax estate includes:
1. all of the deceased's assets, whether real estate or personal estate, and includes even small-value items such as the contents of his or her home;
2. any gifts made by the deceased in the seven years before death;
3. some assets which were not owned by the deceased but which are affected by the death (the most common example is a life interest in a trust, technically known as an interest-in-possession);
4. gifts with reservation of benefit. These are gifts where the legal ownership passes to the recipient. However, the donor continues to enjoy the benefit of the asset either rent free or at reduced cost. The seven year period outlined above does not begin counting down whilst a gift is considered to be under a reservation of benefit.
There is also a charge on "lifetime chargeable transfers" into certain trusts (and a recalculation of those charges if the giver dies within seven years), and trusts themselves have an inheritance tax regime. See Taxation of trusts (United Kingdom).
Deductions
There are deductions for:
1. all assets left to a spouse or civil partner. However the exemption is limited to £55,000 where the deceased is domiciled in some part of UK and the surviving spouse/civil partner is domiciled outside of the UK;
2. all assets left to a charity registered in the UK.
3. some political donations;
4. gifts of up to £3000 in total in a given yea
5. "small gifts" of up to £250 made to separate people;
6. some business assets (under Business Property Relief or "BPR");
7. some farmland (under Agricultural Property Relief or "APR").
8. gifts made out of income that do not impact upon the standard of living of an individual.
9. gifts made in contemplation of a marriage or civil partnership. The level of this deduction varies according to the relationship of the donor to person marrying or entering into a civil partnership.
Minimising IHT
In order to avoid IHT, many people in the IHT bracket practise some or all of the following avoidance measures:
* Outright gifts to another individual made during a person's lifetime are known as "potentially exempt transfers" or PETs. They are taxable if the person dies within seven years, but have the potential to become exempt from tax once seven years have gone by with the giver still alive. If the giver survives three years, the rate of tax on the PET reduces by one fifth (to 32%) and then by a further fifth on each of the subsequent anniversaries (to 24%, 16% then 8%) reaching 0% after seven years. This is known as inheritance tax taper relief (not to be confused with the better-known capital gains tax taper relief).
* Gifting assets to a trust fund before death. (Some gifts of this kind, however, are disadvantageous as they amount to lifetime chargeable transfers on which IHT is paid straight away if more than £300,000 is gifted. This applies to many more trusts than previously under legislation announced in the 2006 budget. See Taxation of trusts (United Kingdom).)
* Certain special types of trust, such as Discounted Gift Trusts and Gift & Loan Trusts, which allow for some planning whilst retaining some access to capital/income.
* Charitable giving, which is IHT exempt.
* Lifetime gifts within certain limits are completely exempt. These include any number of "small gifts" (up to £250), an annual amount of £3,000, all regular gifts from surplus income, and some wedding gifts.
* Upon death, passing non-taxable assets to the next generation (or to a discretionary trust for the benefit of the whole family) and therefore NOT to the spouse. To many people this seems counter-intuitive because they are aware that gifts to a spouse are IHT exempt and should therefore be maximised. However, if something is non-taxable on the first death it should not go to the spouse as it will merely increase his or her tax estate upon his or her later death. (The nil-band discretionary trust, discussed below, is an example of this principle in action.)
Nil rate bands
A person who has a tax estate less than the nil rate band may consider himself or herself outside the IHT bracket. However a couple with estates of less than double the nil rate band cannot consider themselves outside the IHT bracket unless they have taken specific action to ensure they use both nil rate bands. If they do the natural thing - the first of them to die leaving everything to the survivor - then they have effectively wasted that first nil rate band. The survivor will die owning everything, with only his or her one nil rate band to set against it.
The most common means of ensuring that both nil rate bands are used is called a nil band discretionary trust (now more properly known as NRB Relevant Property Trust*). This is an arrangement in both wills which says that whoever is the first to die leaves their nil band to a discretionary trust for the family, and not to the survivor. The survivor can still benefit from those assets if needed, but they are not part of that survivor's tax estate.
For the above to work it is important that each partner has sufficient assets in their own name to cover the nil-band. Many married couples do not have sufficient spare assets to fund the NRB relevant property trust without using the matrimonial home. The home will normally be in joint names so the will needs to make provision for using the deceased's interest in the home in relation to the relevant property trust. If assets are all in one name, or in joint names, the arrangement may not work. This is often described, slightly inaccurately, as "equalisation".
A gift is not valid for IHT purposes if the giver retains any benefit from it. There are quite complex and rigid rules which establish whether the giver has retained a benefit, and where there is a retention of benefit all IHT advantages from the gift are effectively lost.
* Finance Act 2006
Pre-owned assets
The Finance Act 2004 introduced an income tax regime known as pre-owned asset tax which aims to reduce the use of common methods of IHT avoidance.
How is his take the money from the wealthy to help the poor not a socialist ideal?
The tories will not win the next election. Fact.