Conservatives

[Strokes]

So if you look at this in a socialists mindset, the tax paid in the form of inheritance tax indirectly benefits your children - it allows the government to provide services that your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will use.

Now there might be an argument to say the limit could be lifted a bit more - with a few years of being static and house prices rising the limit possibly captures more modest estates, but at least the inclusion of the first owned property going forward should temper that issue.

I'm not against people passing things onto their children, that's a natural facet of life, however I do believe that simply storing up massive sums of wealth and passing it on at death is no good for anyone - not your descendants, the economy or the state.

And so this brings me on to an often unseen benefit of IHT and that is due to its existence, it forces people to think about their wealth and plan for their death, something that I imagine many wouldn't do to the same degree if IHT didn't exist.

Naturally if you plan, you may not need to pay any tax on whatever you pass on, or you can at least minimise what is paid - and as anyone who's acted as an executor on an estate will know, the more pre-planning that has been put into an estate, the easier it is to unwind everything and distribute.

Some useful reading regarding new limits / rules below...http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/inheritance-tax-planning-iht

This belief that if you take away money on death will encourage people to spend more whilst they are alive is a fallacy IMO, if I couldn't leave money I wouldn't just keep working like I do now. I'd earn what I need to earn and retire early and I think most would do the same. Do you have children Barry? In fact does anyone arguing for stronger inheritance tax actually have children, I just can't believe that they do.

[MC Prussian]

Apologies if I'm incorrect, but your posts make it seem like you don't realise we do already have inheritance tax in the UK, at a rate of 40% on anything above £325k.

That level seems low to me, although I gather there are exemptions for property and married couples can combine their allowances. Also, only about 3% of deaths ultimately lead to a payment of inheritance tax, and the take from it is quite low at around £4bn which is just a fraction of a percentage of the overall tax revenue, so I suspect it's quite easy to 'avoid'.

 

Yeah, I wasn't arguing the current inheritance tax so much, as more an additional tax on wealth transfer that is made before the death of the previous owner as well as a tax on estate above £1m.

Family wealth can be moved down the family ladder and past the authorities as an early inheritance/bestowal/donation in order to avoid paying the current tax rate - either that, or people start investing their money in companies or put it into other mobile or immobile assets instead of putting it into a will (using family members as part-owners, major investors or shareholders in the companies in question) in order to get away with it.

 

The current UK inheritance tax of 40% on estate above £325'000 (property, money, possessions) is also payable by the executioner of the estate or administrator or the will, so oftentimes few people of the immediate family are directly affected by or involved in that process.

 

Just out of interest - how high is the percentage of people in the UK with an estimated estate of £325'000 and above? I'd guess it's surely less than ten, if not less than five percent.

[leicsmac]

Who's stifling debate?  You're allowed to disagree, pretending not to understand a quite obvious point  stops debate.

 

Isn't it something of a bad faith argument to assume that people are deliberately misunderstanding you in order to muddy the waters? And even more so to suggest that it's because those people are envious and change the debate to a personal one of that account?

 

Personally I think both sides have made their points pretty clearly, but to claim lack of understanding is due to deliberate malice doesn't add much to things, imo.

 

If that's the best answer you can come up with, then I guess the charge will stick.

Do you believe wealth should be limited, if so what limit? You have mentioned wealth redistribution before so how much is too rich and how much is too poor, who gets what?

I work and strive hard in the belief that I can provide for my children now and in the future, I'm taxed fairly on that, why should that money be taxed again if I pass it on?

(I don't have enough for it to be subject to tax yet but I would love it to be above that current threshold).

 

Yeah, sorry, I perhaps should have been more extensive in my reply but it was late so I hit and run.

 

Personally, regarding inheritance tax, the "double tax" argument is a strong one, but I really do think that large sums being passed down through families destroys any hint of meritocracy. And meritocracy is the only good reason for inequality. If kids want a better life for themselves, they should build it themselves, not have it built for them. I always thought that self-sufficiency was something conservatives greatly admired. Giving your kids something of a leg up when you die is one thing, but enough wealth that they have a lifetime of never having to work and earn it?

 

As for the numbers, I think Barry above has made the argument better than I have.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

This belief that if you take away money on death will encourage people to spend more whilst they are alive is a fallacy IMO, if I couldn't leave money I wouldn't just keep working like I do now. I'd earn what I need to earn and retire early and I think most would do the same. Do you have children Barry? In fact does anyone arguing for stronger inheritance tax actually have children, I just can't believe that they do.

You should note, I haven't once suggested IHT should be stronger... In fact I suggested the threashold should be increased in my opinion.

However, I don't see it as the regressive and unfair tax that some have expressed on here, because there is a reasonable allowance that allows people to pass on wealth without being taxed - it's just the upper echelons of wealth where tax comes into play - and it's my belief that this tax encourages favourable behaviour, i.e. the planning of your finances in later life.

Spending your wealth is only one aspect of this - retiring early is another one! If you are comfortable and can retire from your job early, that potentially opens up an opportunity for someone else and contributes to the greater good of the economy.

There is also a practical side to IHT tax, because if that was removed I could see it being replaced by amounts of inheritance being classed as a person's income which would need to be declared under self assessment ... So very, very messy as opposed to calculating against an estate and deducting tax before a distribution.

So as you can see, I'm looking at quite a wide picture with my judgement on this, I'm not focusing on a narrow part and agree with the principal that the current legislation sets because it is balanced - it's not indiscriminate, it has a solid framework where most people are unaffected and those that might be have an opportunity to do something about it.

[Strokes]

Isn't it something of a bad faith argument to assume that people are deliberately misunderstanding you in order to muddy the waters? And even more so to suggest that it's because those people are envious and change the debate to a personal one of that account?

 

Personally I think both sides have made their points pretty clearly, but to claim lack of understanding is due to deliberate malice doesn't add much to things, imo.

 

 

Yeah, sorry, I perhaps should have been more extensive in my reply but it was late so I hit and run.

 

Personally, regarding inheritance tax, the "double tax" argument is a strong one, but I really do think that large sums being passed down through families destroys any hint of meritocracy. And meritocracy is the only good reason for inequality. If kids want a better life for themselves, they should build it themselves, not have it built for them. I always thought that self-sufficiency was something conservatives greatly admired. Giving your kids something of a leg up when you die is one thing, but enough wealth that they have a lifetime of never having to work and earn it?

 

As for the numbers, I think Barry above has made the argument better than I have.

Self sufficiency to me means to ability to pay for your existence, I.e not rely on state handouts. Just because you have inherited a sum of money to cover you for life does not mean you can't put anything into society, and build your own legacy. My argument stems from the way it is perceived that some people are born in fortunate circumstances and others in much less but on the basis of fairness the motivation is to remove the fortune, rather than look at ways we can help the less fortunate. Finance whether we like it or not controls so many aspects of existence and I don't believe you can have a world without poor or rich people. The gap between the two perhaps should be a little closer than it is and maybe some of the things/skills that separate the two are a little unfair sometimes but the system as it is needs to work that way. We can't simulate value and taxing things that only affect the rich will just result in the money leaving the country, people will not give it up without a fight as they most likely have worked damn hard for it or risked a lot to get it.

I do understand your points Leicmac but I just don't believe in the same utopian society that you do, I think if you remove greed and envy, you will also remove a part of society that helps us progress as a race.

[davieG]

If the government were allowed to take all money left when people die then there would be no point in anyone saving, couple this with it being gobbled up if you should be unfortunate to need care late in life then we might as well all just live our lives as if it's ending tomorrow.

 

While we're at it let's pack in work and live on the dole.

 

[leicsmac]

Self sufficiency to me means to ability to pay for your existence, I.e not rely on state handouts. Just because you have inherited a sum of money to cover you for life does not mean you can't put anything into society, and build your own legacy. My argument stems from the way it is perceived that some people are born in fortunate circumstances and others in much less but on the basis of fairness the motivation is to remove the fortune, rather than look at ways we can help the less fortunate. Finance whether we like it or not controls so many aspects of existence and I don't believe you can have a world without poor or rich people. The gap between the two perhaps should be a little closer than it is and maybe some of the things/skills that separate the two are a little unfair sometimes but the system as it is needs to work that way. We can't simulate value and taxing things that only affect the rich will just result in the money leaving the country, people will not give it up without a fight as they most likely have worked damn hard for it or risked a lot to get it.

I do understand your points Leicsmac but I just don't believe in the same utopian society that you do, I think if you remove greed and envy, you will also remove a part of society that helps us progress as a race.

 

I understand, and this is an incredibly interesting point that has been mentioned on here before.

 

Is greed, envy and ambition a shining example of the evolutionary principle, the way that humans have progressed and will continue to progress throughout history? For example, ambition and competition was what got us to the moon, after all - I think it highly unlikely that if the US and the USSR hadn't been actively competing with each other that it would have happened nearly as quickly as it did. Or is it something that will one day end up destroying us all as the lust for power or material wealth means that humanity ends up destroying itself or overlooking/not preparing for something that does the job for it? History is full of complex species that have had the same happen to them for a variety of reasons, after all. You might say that in such a situation enlightened self-interest would come to the fore and people would end up working together for survivals sake, but it could easily just either be too late by that time or result in anarchy and global war as some think they can survive and so look to fight and gather as much as they can for themselves in preparation for the changed world...and merely be the last ones out the door.

 

Of course, it's a lot more complicated than a simple either/or dichotomy, and I reckon overall a balance between the two is needed. Allow people to be ambitious, to work and to prosper and be rewarded for that work...but at the same time to contribute to areas that affect us all in the future, and, more importantly, for (as you say) those who do have the means and the wealth to create their own legacy to do so, not shutter their own money away. For instance, people like Elon Musk inspire me, even though he has a massive bank account, because he actually looks to make progress with the money he has.

[Dodgy Bob]

There's a chart in the government's inheritance tax statistics release which shows the composition of taxable estates by value. Not surprisingly, the larger estates contain a high proportion of equities and a low proportion of cash. Presumably, inheritors of those estates will keep what they don't spend invested, so you could argue that the money is being put to good use even if it isn't taxed. And further, more debatable, that money invested in businesses is more efficient at improving the lives of everyone than money given to the government.

[RobHawk]

Received a letter from David Cameron today (no idea why - it's a generic letter so I assume it's gone to all of Wales), it had a proper parliament envelope and letter head too.

Anyway, it basically said for me not to vote labour at the Welsh assembly election otherwise I'll let Corbin in. The scaremongering ****! Surely he realises that Carwyn Jones is the leader of Welsh labour and JC will remain in Westminster!

I've never been so annoyed getting election shit through the door!

The lib dem leaflet was pathetic on a different scale - it had one of those stick man things, don't be like dai - they are also practically begging for 2nd votes, weird! I won't be voting for either of them!

[Webbo]

Don't Labour send out election leaflets?

[RobHawk]

Don't Labour send out election leaflets?

Yeah, but they have concentrated on what they would do if they win, same with plaid. I haven't had a letter from Jeremy Corbin in addition to an election leaflet either telling me to keep Cameron out of Wales. It's the tone and scaremongering I'm commenting on.

[Webbo]

I'm sure there were no negative comments about the conservatives at all.

[Jimothy]

I'm sure there were no negative comments about the conservatives at all.

Well he didn't say there was, so why assume there was?

Why do you have to be so defensive of your precious Tories? They can do wrong you know.

[RobHawk]

I'm sure there were no negative comments about the conservatives at all.

Nah there definitely was one, but it was generic and about Tory policy. Maybe you gotta see it to believe it, I'll try and upload it on here. It really is ridiculous.

For the record I will not be voting labour, so am not trying to point score in their favour, just astonished that Cameron has wasted more money sending letters out to scaremonger in the Welsh election.

I know you love him Webbo, and will defend him at all costs, but it really is astounding!

[Webbo]

Well he didn't say there was, so why assume there was?

Why do you have to be so defensive of your precious Tories? They can do wrong you know.

Not being defensive. Robhawk was saying how terrible the Tories were for sending out leaflets attacking Labour( that's being defensive surely?) When every party does the same. We're all entitled to call political parties but at least have a real reason for it.

[Webbo]

Nah there definitely was one, but it was generic and about Tory policy. Maybe you gotta see it to believe it, I'll try and upload it on here. It really is ridiculous.

For the record I will not be voting labour, so am not trying to point score in their favour, just astonished that Cameron has wasted more money sending letters out to scaremonger in the Welsh election.

I know you love him Webbo, and will defend him at all costs, but it really is astounding!

I doubt it was Cameron personally. There are party machines for these things.

[RobHawk]

I doubt it was Cameron personally. There are party machines for these things.

Oh it's generic, but it's got his signature on it, and is on his headed paper.

If you read my original post I commented on the lib dem leaflet, not the conservative leaflet (I've had one of those as well). But it's the letter I've received, addressed to me, that I can't get my head around. Like I said, I'll try and get a copy on here for all to see.

[Webbo]

Post the Labour one too so we can compare.

[RobHawk]

Post the Labour one too so we can compare.

I haven't had a letter from labour

[DJ Barry Hammond]

I doubt it was Cameron personally. There are party machines for these things.

That's unfair on Rob - he's kinda big deal you know, it could well be a personal letter from DC

[The Railway Man]

Is anyone else having trouble deciding who to vote for at the minute in May? Ran out of patience with the Tories now, Labour are a joke with Corbyn at the helm and the Liberals are irrelevant.

 

I could end up spoiling my ballot next time around.

[Guest MattP]

Finally received a letter from my local MP today (dated 30th March is the post office that bad these days)

Despite his consistent Eurosceptism and telling me he's an outer he's now decided he believes the Prime Ministers negotiation is wonderful and will be (reluctantly) voting to remain.

These people have no shame, my vote is now also up for grabs.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Finally received a letter from my local MP today (dated 30th March is the post office that bad these days)

Despite his consistent Eurosceptism and telling me he's an outer he's now decided he believes the Prime Ministers negotiation is wonderful and will be (reluctantly) voting to remain.

These people have no shame, my vote is now also up for grabs.

That the privatised Royal Mail?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Is anyone else having trouble deciding who to vote for at the minute in May? Ran out of patience with the Tories now, Labour are a joke with Corbyn at the helm and the Liberals are irrelevant.

 

I could end up spoiling my ballot next time around.

Vote based on the merits of the individual politician in front of you - that's the person who will have the power / influence at that level, much more so than the leaders of the parties.

[Guest MattP]

That the privatised Royal Mail?

 

Set myself up for that one.