[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[Peteinblack]

Perhaps relocate them also? To a large furrow, of some sort? A ditch, if you will.

Well, they do seem very keen on Rwanda....

 

[jcdenton08]

they almost certainly haven't "worked hard", more daily mail spin

Come off it.

My ex-girlfriend lived in a rather deprived former mining town in West Yorkshire, around 15 miles from Leeds. Her Uncle worked from the age of 15 until retirement aged 60 in the colliery. He went from leaving school at 15 to going down a mine for 12 hours 5-6 days a week (Sundays off) for very little money, to running the entire pit and several others. He is the epitome of working class made good.

He was staunch Labour his entire life, and a regional union leader. He worked very long days, never travelled abroad, and the only holidays he took were yearly weekends in Scarborough, or occasionally Skegness.

He saved all his money to start a family with his wife. They lived modestly, rarely eating out in a small terraced house near the colliery so he wouldn’t have to drive and run a car.

Sadly, they couldn’t have children of their own. My ex-girlfriend was like a surrogate daughter to them, and they spoilt her rotten to give her all the chances that many growing up in a deprived area didn’t have. They left their entire inheritance to her, which given they saved every penny after a lifetime of work and no children, was a sizeable amount. This paid for a private education. Her first property bought for her. Driving lessons and a car.

She was the first person in her family to go to University. Thanks to the chances given to her, she was hugely successful.

Now; are you suggesting the right thing to do would be to have taken 80% of everything her Uncle and Aunt had earned, scrimped, saved and frugally to provide for their “only child” should have been taken away and given to the state?

You need to grow up, son.

 

[The Clamp]

The argument against inheritence tax is always couched in the terms that everybody paying it started with nothing and built up their wealth from the gutter. These cases are very rare. It's more likely that these people would be losing 80% of assets they've "worked hard" to inherit from their parents or obtained from investments, or because of the massive rise in property prices.

Most of us work hard all our lives. There is little correlation between how many hours you've worked and how much money you have. "Middle England" is upset about this because very few people are happy to confront the truth that financial success is most often less to do with what you've done and more to do with where you happened to land when you were born. People find admitting this truth very difficult, because it seems to come accompanied by an inherent self-criticism, or belittling of their percieved acheivements. As with institutional racism, a lot of those on the right end of the inequality take it personally if they are forced to acknowledge that everybody's chances of success are less to do with them and more to do with protections of privilege put in place long before they were born*. As Leon Rosselson put it:

"By theft and murder they took the land
Now everywhere the walls spring up at their command."

It's easier on the pysche and on the bank balance to continue the pretence that the world isn't unfair and that you got where you are because you're more special than those who didn't. Scientific research suggests that this isn't the case: Valentine Duke won the $1 bet.

* - Back when Mike Harding was a stand up he had a bit about his grandad wandering across countryside only to be confronted by the Lord of the Manor telling him he's on his land. Grandad responds by asking how you can own that was just there before you were born and how he got it. The Lord says that he inherited it from his father and his father and his father. In response Grandad asks him how the first member of his family got it and the Lord says proudly that he fought for it. "Take your jacket off then," says Grandad "I'll fight you for it now."

And they frame it as “the death tax”. To make it sound like it’s a terrible thing.

As you say, the truth is those with large generational wealth have it all squirrelled away off shore and in so called “altruistic foundations” and “charitable trusts ”. So the the taxman will never get any of it.

Whereas the average family have worked hard for their savings and property and have no such facilities to protect it. It’s us that pay “the death tax” while the wealthy are free to die, tax free.

 

[Randy McNob]

as i usually vote lib dem, i'm interested to know why you wouldn't vote labour?

Maybe to avoid the "Chaos under Ed Milliband"?

 

[rogersix]

You're missing the bigger picture sweetie, try using independent thought, and let me know how you get on

Come off it.

My ex-girlfriend lived in a rather deprived former mining town in West Yorkshire, around 15 miles from Leeds. Her Uncle worked from the age of 15 until retirement aged 60 in the colliery. He went from leaving school at 15 to going down a mine for 12 hours 5-6 days a week (Sundays off) for very little money, to running the entire pit and several others. He is the epitome of working class made good.

He was staunch Labour his entire life, and a regional union leader. He worked very long days, never travelled abroad, and the only holidays he took were yearly weekends in Scarborough, or occasionally Skegness.

He saved all his money to start a family with his wife. They lived modestly, rarely eating out in a small terraced house near the colliery so he wouldn’t have to drive and run a car.

Sadly, they couldn’t have children of their own. My ex-girlfriend was like a surrogate daughter to them, and they spoilt her rotten to give her all the chances that many growing up in a deprived area didn’t have. They left their entire inheritance to her, which given they saved every penny after a lifetime of work and no children, was a sizeable amount. This paid for a private education. Her first property bought for her. Driving lessons and a car.

She was the first person in her family to go to University. Thanks to the chances given to her, she was hugely successful.

Now; are you suggesting the right thing to do would be to have taken 80% of everything her Uncle and Aunt had earned, scrimped, saved and frugally to provide for their “only child” should have been taken away and given to the state?

You need to grow up, son.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Come off it.

My ex-girlfriend lived in a rather deprived former mining town in West Yorkshire, around 15 miles from Leeds. Her Uncle worked from the age of 15 until retirement aged 60 in the colliery. He went from leaving school at 15 to going down a mine for 12 hours 5-6 days a week (Sundays off) for very little money, to running the entire pit and several others. He is the epitome of working class made good.

He was staunch Labour his entire life, and a regional union leader. He worked very long days, never travelled abroad, and the only holidays he took were yearly weekends in Scarborough, or occasionally Skegness.

He saved all his money to start a family with his wife. They lived modestly, rarely eating out in a small terraced house near the colliery so he wouldn’t have to drive and run a car.

Sadly, they couldn’t have children of their own. My ex-girlfriend was like a surrogate daughter to them, and they spoilt her rotten to give her all the chances that many growing up in a deprived area didn’t have. They left their entire inheritance to her, which given they saved every penny after a lifetime of work and no children, was a sizeable amount. This paid for a private education. Her first property bought for her. Driving lessons and a car.

She was the first person in her family to go to University. Thanks to the chances given to her, she was hugely successful.

Now; are you suggesting the right thing to do would be to have taken 80% of everything her Uncle and Aunt had earned, scrimped, saved and frugally to provide for their “only child” should have been taken away and given to the state?

You need to grow up, son.

The amount they gave her would be under the threshold for inheritance tax.

That echoes my story, where my daughter was the first to go to university thanks to my scraping and saving. She has worked hard and lives in Surrey now. Her property is only just over the threshold.

 

[The Clamp]

The amount they gave her would be under the threshold for inheritance tax.

That echoes my story, where my daughter was the first to go to university thanks to my scraping and saving. She has worked hard and lives in Surrey now. Her property is only just over the threshold.

This to me, is where the concept of “inheritance tax” falls down;

There is no taking into account of how the estate was earned, how far over the threshold the individual is, and no accounting for how much the tax would deplete the estate.

I’m usually in favour of strict boundaries and the idea that a line has to be drawn somewhere. But with inheritance tax, if I’m not mistaken, you go over the threshold and you’re paying the tax?

 

[jcdenton08]

The amount they gave her would be under the threshold for inheritance tax.

That echoes my story, where my daughter was the first to go to university thanks to my scraping and saving. She has worked hard and lives in Surrey now. Her property is only just over the threshold.

Yes, but this is my point. Blanket redistribution of wealth through cash or property “above X figure” is a wholly imperfect solution which punishes those who work hard to achieve as you both have done. It does nothing to offset gains from the embarrassing avarice of rhe über rich, because they simply are protected by the laws and those who make them.

All that would happen if, as ludicrously suggested, inheritance tax was raised to extremely high levels, is the middle will be squeezed even harder with the 1% being completely untouched anyway.

People have been coming up with wealth redistibution policies which are completely unrealistic.

 

[sparkie]

That's because we didn't get the Brexit they voted for...

I didn't get the Brexit I didn't vote for either for that matter.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This to me, is where the concept of “inheritance tax” falls down;

There is no taking into account of how the estate was earned, how far over the threshold the individual is, and no accounting for how much the tax would deplete the estate.

I’m usually in favour of strict boundaries and the idea that a line has to be drawn somewhere. But with inheritance tax, if I’m not mistaken, you go over the threshold and you’re paying the tax?

Yes, the threshold should be raised to £1M in my opinion. It will still affect the super rich.

 

[abc]

Its interesting that despite the headline that this gov is raising the highest % of tax in history, all the proposed 'solutions' involve raising more tax rather than reducing spending. I quite like the idea of raising the minimum wage to a much higher level to a true living wage and then enforcing it much, much more than it is currently. This would then mean we could do away with a raft of benefits that are paid out essentially to enable (some) employers to pay low wages. It would encourage more people into work and enable families to afford childcare, thus doing away with more (currently necessary) taxpayer support. However, the problem with this is that we will become even less competitive with imports from lower wage countries, which means the loss of jobs or the imposition of import tariffs.

I would also question those who are exempt from paying tax at all - for example, the Church of England who have assets of c.£8 billion, own a vast portfolio of land and commercial properties and are making hundreds of millions from the sale of land for housing and yet pay absolutely no tax.

 

[rogersix]

Yes, but this is my point. Blanket redistribution of wealth through cash or property “above X figure” is a wholly imperfect solution which punishes those who work hard to achieve as you both have done. It does nothing to offset gains from the embarrassing avarice of rhe über rich, because they simply are protected by the laws and those who make them.

All that would happen if, as ludicrously suggested, inheritance tax was raised to extremely high levels, is the middle will be squeezed even harder with the 1% being completely untouched anyway.

People have been coming up with wealth redistibution policies which are completely unrealistic.

help me out with a realistic redistribition policy

 

[Silverhatch]

Yes, the threshold should be raised to £1M in my opinion. It will still affect the super rich.

The (super) rich pay f*** all tax. There are plenty of billionaires who make this very point! Taxation is not the problem, it’s legal avoidance and illegal evasion (corporate/personal) and the constant redistribution of wealth and the protection of inherited wealth that needs addressing.

 

[rippleman]

Yes, the threshold should be raised to £1M in my opinion. It will still affect the super rich.

In many cases, the threshold is already £1M!!

What the Daily Mail won't tell you is that for a married couple / civil partners the IHT threshold can be a £1M. Here's how it works.

On first death the Estate is left to the surviving spouse. There is NO IHT payable at all on the Estate. The £325K threshold amount is enhanced by a main residence exemption of £175K and because no IHT is payable, those exemptions pass to the surviving spouse.

On the second death there is £650K IHT nil rate band and, potentially, a further £350K residence exemption provided that the property is left to children (includes step, fostered and adopted) or grandchildren. There is your £1M threshold.

Then hammer investment properties, investment portfolios etc at 80%. What's not to like?

 

[Stato]

The (super) rich pay f*** all tax. There are plenty of billionaires who make this very point! Taxation is not the problem, it’s legal avoidance and illegal evasion (corporate/personal) and the constant redistribution of wealth and the protection of inherited wealth that needs addressing.

Capital is international. At the risk of getting an ice pick to make my ears burn, socialism, even democratic socialism, needs to be international too. The right, with it's obsession with protecting the power of the nation state, has recognised this far more than the left has.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

In many cases, the threshold is already £1M!!

What the Daily Mail won't tell you is that for a married couple / civil partners the IHT threshold can be a £1M. Here's how it works.

On first death the Estate is left to the surviving spouse. There is NO IHT payable at all on the Estate. The £325K threshold amount is enhanced by a main residence exemption of £175K and because no IHT is payable, those exemptions pass to the surviving spouse.

On the second death there is £650K IHT nil rate band and, potentially, a further £350K residence exemption provided that the property is left to children (includes step, fostered and adopted) or grandchildren. There is your £1M threshold.

Then hammer investment properties, investment portfolios etc at 80%. What's not to like?

I was thinking of the £650K threshold. I didn’t realise the residence exemption for children applied to grown up children, although both of them are still at uni, at the moment.

 

[goldstone]

I'm curious, what are your top 3 things the Tories should be doing now?

1. Stopping illegal migrants. REALLY stopping them.
2. Greatly reducing taxes.
3. Dismantle the NHS and find an alternative.

 

[goldstone]

emigrate?

Where to? It's not just this country that's a bit of a mess. Can you name one country that would be a good place to live right now?

 

[nicko31]

1. Stopping illegal migrants. REALLY stopping them.
2. Greatly reducing taxes.
3. Dismantle the NHS and find an alternative.

You could always go for a green card? Rishi will be over there soon...

 

[keaton]

1. Stopping illegal migrants. REALLY stopping them.
2. Greatly reducing taxes.
3. Dismantle the NHS and find an alternative.

So essentially you want British people to pay millions of pounds to US Healthcare service for worse services. And that's your priority in life?