Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] The Labour Government
- Thread starter Super Steve Earle
- Start date
And the bbc
Inheritance tax increases expected for some in Budget
It is not known how many people are likely to end up paying more under the government's plan.www.bbc.co.uk
They’ve covered all bases with a stream of articles, having to appear relevant because hyperbole supremos SkyNews are it at 24-7.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Slight amendment
That won’t catch the huge numbers avoiding it. Instead only hitting a narrow band of estates typically £325,000 to £2m who are caught through naivety.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
What does witless Barry Halverson think of old folk who’ll now freeze? Probably not a great deal, he’s too busy plaguarising old jokes.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Aye….my ex (who has very little money) lost one of her four sisters last week….estate will probably be 500k because of the house ..as far as i know they’ll be paying IHT as you state…and probably more
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Out of curiosity do you know much about him…ive never heard of him and on the basis of that question won’t be following him…also not on twitter
Never heard of him before. X is full of right and left wing bores who clearly don’t work hard, instead posting virtuous or nasty bullsh1t all day to harvest likes. Which easily led disciples then repost elsewhere as if they’re funny gods or carry weight. It started on here in March 2020.
Compose your own comments and asides
.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,501
If IHT rules change and I have an increased liability I'll take it on the chin as always (or more accurately, my kids will), as we desperately need more investment in so many areas. And I certainly wouldn't try to stop those who are better off giving a little more on 'a matter of principle'. After all, to agree we need investment and then argue 'but not from me' or 'someone else on principle' would be totally ridiculous.
But it's a little frustrating seeing the Government refuse (and we all know why) to reverse the two desperate NI reductions made by the previous Government in the first quarter this year, costing us over £10B per year, and that pales into insignificance compared to what we lose daily by not re-joining the customs union. I have heard it called an idiocy tax but prefer to see it as the cost of democracy
We all have to take responsibility for the state the country is in, stand up and do our bit, but I'd like the cut off for WFP to be raised a little.
But it's a little frustrating seeing the Government refuse (and we all know why) to reverse the two desperate NI reductions made by the previous Government in the first quarter this year, costing us over £10B per year, and that pales into insignificance compared to what we lose daily by not re-joining the customs union. I have heard it called an idiocy tax but prefer to see it as the cost of democracy
We all have to take responsibility for the state the country is in, stand up and do our bit, but I'd like the cut off for WFP to be raised a little.
Last edited:
chip
Well-known member
I think one of the problems has been the ever increasing black hole and the future years of its occurence. All of the talk/speculation has been about filling that now and in coming years. Precious little on the investment side. Otherwise, as one of the supposedley well off, it seems like quite a small group being expected to pay 'a little more' to maintain the status quo.
I agree with you about NI. I've always wondered why you pay proportionally less when you earn more. Extending the range of NI would not have been seen as a 'tax on ordinary people'.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,501
Sorry to hear that.
If she was married, in a civil partnership, or has children, she probably won't. If she is none of these she may be due, but on that estate it will be minimal.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
I reckon it won't. We'll see.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
I suppose it all depends how smart RR is on this, and whether that's sufficient. Despite the fear on this, I don't think she'll be looking to bring more of those into the tax -- as happened with the freezing of the thresholds. It's the other side that she at least ought to be looking via closing down loopholes.
I get why you're mentioning a £325k to £2m range but would add that most estates probably fall within that range, yet only 4% of estates pay IHT. Just goes to show what IFAs can do. Some might mention accountants too
Machiavelli
Well-known member
I fear you'll have to wait at least ten years on the customs union and, in all likelihood, five years on NI. It's staggering NI received scant attention but twas ever thus in this country. They were a last desperate attempt to demonstrate the fabled 'tax-cutting credentials' of the prior regime and have squeezed the public finances horrendously but at least had one saving grace: it reduced the government take on the working population, and not those that don't.If IHT rules change and I have an increased liability I'll take it on the chin as always (or more accurately, my kids will), as we desperately need more investment in so many areas. And I certainly wouldn't try to stop those who are better off giving a little more on 'a matter of principle'. After all, to agree we need investment and then argue 'but not from me' or 'someone else on principle' would be totally ridiculous.
But it's a little frustrating seeing the Government refuse (and we all know why) to reverse the two desperate NI reductions made by the previous Government in the first quarter this year, costing us over £10B per year, and that pales into insignificance compared to what we lose daily by not re-joining the customs union. I have heard it called an idiocy tax but prefer to see it as the cost of democracy
We all have to take responsibility for the state the country is in, stand up and do our bit, but I'd like the cut off for WFP to be raised a little.
The Renters Rights Bill is progressing smoothly and should be law in mid 2025. A very welcome addition to the UK legislation. In summary:
Scrapping Section 21 evictions – Labour intends to abolish Section 21 as soon as possible.
Rent controls – Rents can only be increased for existing tenancies once a year, via a Section 13 notice. Increases will have to align with market rates. For new tenancies, landlords and agents will not be allowed to accept offers above the advertised price.
Decent Homes Standard: Awaab’s Law -The introduction of this to the private rental sector will require landlords to investigate and fix reported health hazards, such as damp and mould, within strict timeframes.
Most grounds for eviction will require longer notice periods - Certain grounds will require 4 months’ notice and can’t be used within the first 12 months of a tenancy, including the landlord needing to sell the property or wanting to move in themselves.
Fixed-term assured tenancies (ASTs) will be abolished - All tenancies will become periodic.
Tenants will have the right to request permission to keep a pet - The landlord cannot unreasonably refuse, but will have the right to require pet insurance.
Changes will apply to all tenancies at the same time – Labour intends for all changes to be applied to both new and existing tenancies at the same time, rather than being introduced for just new tenancies initially.
Scrapping Section 21 evictions – Labour intends to abolish Section 21 as soon as possible.
Rent controls – Rents can only be increased for existing tenancies once a year, via a Section 13 notice. Increases will have to align with market rates. For new tenancies, landlords and agents will not be allowed to accept offers above the advertised price.
Decent Homes Standard: Awaab’s Law -The introduction of this to the private rental sector will require landlords to investigate and fix reported health hazards, such as damp and mould, within strict timeframes.
Most grounds for eviction will require longer notice periods - Certain grounds will require 4 months’ notice and can’t be used within the first 12 months of a tenancy, including the landlord needing to sell the property or wanting to move in themselves.
Fixed-term assured tenancies (ASTs) will be abolished - All tenancies will become periodic.
Tenants will have the right to request permission to keep a pet - The landlord cannot unreasonably refuse, but will have the right to require pet insurance.
Changes will apply to all tenancies at the same time – Labour intends for all changes to be applied to both new and existing tenancies at the same time, rather than being introduced for just new tenancies initially.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Not talked about much, but I can see fuel duty being increased in the upcoming budget
The Tories took 5p off as a 'temporary' measure, so I think that would be something that would/could be stopped now and justified on the basis of 'we're not putting taxes up, we're just not continuing with a temporary reduction' - and therefore fit their manifesto promises and so on. It's worth about £5bn.
I'd be surprised if they went further though.