Another thought....this is a lifetime gift tax right. Most parents give their kids money to help with uni living costs, for a car, help with their first home (be it rental or bought). £100k will soon add up.
You could well find for a lot of people even with smaller homes, they will have used up a large chunk (if not all) of that allowance by the time they die.
Be interesting to know what percentage of that is declared.
It would all have to be totted up under the new scheme.
... But up to that level, legatees can have no complaints if they are forced to share their windfall with the state.
Are you new to this politics malarkey?
Oh, this policy, like the dementia tax, will bomb with large parts of the electorate (substantially the same bits, as it happens). Like the dementia tax, it's a perfectly good policy. But avaricious boomers mentally investing their parents' wealth will be quite unjustifiably furious.
Start messing with people's houses then there's trouble.
Ask T May.
Different dynamic at work. Labour voters are less likley to be home owners. Obviously you will always find people who are the exception to the rule. It strikes me the Tories are totally focused on fighting the last election and substituting policies they believed cost them votes with the opposite. The Tories focus on 'Labour project fear' is ridiculous in that Tory policy to leave the EU causes a fundamental downward force on growth in the economy.
Over 60% of the country are still homeowners, win most of them and big Tory majority
How many of the sixty percent own property above the threshold and if they have more than 2 children: it starts looking less unfavourable. The other thing you have to remember is inheritence can disappear due to care requirements, adaptation to houses (some people can get help but iirc not everyone)and the like. You also have the increase in equity release.
Average house price now £244 000, well above the threshold and at home care costs still exempt from.brimg applied to your home
You are talking in generality about care. Someone might need more than a basic care package.
To be honest I think it immoral that people with assets get free care. Everything else is means tested before retirement age. If someone has to have care and their assets after death have to be used to pay for this I have no problem with that and I speak as someone who might inherit.
... But up to that level, legatees can have no complaints if they are forced to share their windfall with the state.
Are you new to this politics malarkey?
Oh, this policy, like the dementia tax, will bomb with large parts of the electorate (substantially the same bits, as it happens). Like the dementia tax, it's a perfectly good policy. But avaricious boomers mentally investing their parents' wealth will be quite unjustifiably furious.
I think you'll find its the boomers now dying out. This is more a Gen X tax.
We are going to have to disagree on this. I suspect - though cannot prove - that intelligence (by which I mean IQ) is solely genetic.
In any case, this is not the point that I am making. I am arguing that our system favours intelligence over wealth, and that this holds whether the intelligence comes from nature or nurture.
I think (but in an ill-informed sort of way) that raw intelligence is mainly genetic. Not wholly but mainly. My best info says that your intelligence will usually not differ materially from the average of that of your parents. So nature over nurture. Nurture and environment is then highly influential in how it develops and is used. Nevertheless, even accepting it is something you are born with, I class it as part of MERIT in the "Merit vs Luck" formulation. Ditto for good lucks. Good looks rather! Also part of Merit. Along with other benign qualities, honesty, kindness etc.
Reason being, if you start classifying intellect, character & personality, face & figure as part of LUCK, you end up in quite a nihilist place whereby virtually everything is pre-ordained, there is no free will, and nothing is ever therefore truly admirable or reprehensible. It's the sort of suffocating amoral equality that would lead one to arguing that Ted Bundy should get a council house. One for after midnight in the student dorms not a place of maturity and grounded debate such as this.
Another thought....this is a lifetime gift tax right. Most parents give their kids money to help with uni living costs, for a car, help with their first home (be it rental or bought). £100k will soon add up.
You could well find for a lot of people even with smaller homes, they will have used up a large chunk (if not all) of that allowance by the time they die.
Be interesting to know what percentage of that is declared.
Start messing with people's houses then there's trouble.
Ask T May.
Different dynamic at work. Labour voters are less likley to be home owners. Obviously you will always find people who are the exception to the rule. It strikes me the Tories are totally focused on fighting the last election and substituting policies they believed cost them votes with the opposite. The Tories focus on 'Labour project fear' is ridiculous in that Tory policy to leave the EU causes a fundamental downward force on growth in the economy.
Over 60% of the country are still homeowners, win most of them and big Tory majority
How many of the sixty percent own property above the threshold and if they have more than 2 children: it starts looking less unfavourable. The other thing you have to remember is inheritence can disappear due to care requirements, adaptation to houses (some people can get help but iirc not everyone)and the like. You also have the increase in equity release.
Average house price now £244 000, well above the threshold and at home care costs still exempt from.brimg applied to your home
You are talking in generality about care. Someone might need more than a basic care package.
To be honest I think it immoral that people with assets get free care. Everything else is means tested before retirement age. If someone has to have care and their assets after death have to be used to pay for this I have no problem with that and I speak as someone who might inherit.
Oh it will, this will destroy Labour with middle income swing voters if it gains traction given the average house price is now over £200 000
I mentioned this earlier, but many sources had the figure that average inheritance a person can expect to receive in their life was £11k, so this will still not affect most people.
Whilst av house price is above 200k, most people have more than one inheritor, many will have outstanding debts at death, be that mortgage or taking money out of their homes for renovations or pension top ups, and many older people will have to sell their homes to cover care costs.
The average inheritance is now £119 000, very close to Labour's new £125 000 gift tax threshold
Of course if you did away with zero rating for agricultural land you would destroy the owner occupier and tenant farming sector over night.
Do these idiots not remember the desperation Labour caused widows who had the misfortune to have husbands die when they created Capital Transfer Tax in 1974 ? Even they had to change that !
Another thought....this is a lifetime gift tax right. Most parents give their kids money to help with uni living costs, for a car, help with their first home (be it rental or bought). £100k will soon add up.
You could well find for a lot of people even with smaller homes, they will have used up a large chunk (if not all) of that allowance by the time they die.
Be interesting to know what percentage of that is declared.
The cash economy is alive and well, everywhere
I wasn't aware gifts had to be declared unless the person died within 7 years and it was over a certain amount?
Another thought....this is a lifetime gift tax right. Most parents give their kids money to help with uni living costs, for a car, help with their first home (be it rental or bought). £100k will soon add up.
You could well find for a lot of people even with smaller homes, they will have used up a large chunk (if not all) of that allowance by the time they die.
Edit - What about weddings....father of the bride paying for that, that £10k at least. Asian weddings, if they are half as crazy as a few I have been to, now that's your £100k gone there.
Yes. I received some money from my grandad for my wedding three years before he died, so that had to be considered as part of the IHT calculation (though there's also a taper).
It's a good reason for the threshold to be higher if you change to a system of taxing inheritance received, rather than inheritance given.
Start messing with people's houses then there's trouble.
Ask T May.
Different dynamic at work. Labour voters are less likley to be home owners. Obviously you will always find people who are the exception to the rule. It strikes me the Tories are totally focused on fighting the last election and substituting policies they believed cost them votes with the opposite. The Tories focus on 'Labour project fear' is ridiculous in that Tory policy to leave the EU causes a fundamental downward force on growth in the economy.
Over 60% of the country are still homeowners, win most of them and big Tory majority
How many of the sixty percent own property above the threshold and if they have more than 2 children: it starts looking less unfavourable. The other thing you have to remember is inheritence can disappear due to care requirements, adaptation to houses (some people can get help but iirc not everyone)and the like. You also have the increase in equity release.
Average house price now £244 000, well above the threshold and at home care costs still exempt from.brimg applied to your home
You are talking in generality about care. Someone might need more than a basic care package.
To be honest I think it immoral that people with assets get free care. Everything else is means tested before retirement age. If someone has to have care and their assets after death have to be used to pay for this I have no problem with that and I speak as someone who might inherit.
... But up to that level, legatees can have no complaints if they are forced to share their windfall with the state.
Are you new to this politics malarkey?
Oh, this policy, like the dementia tax, will bomb with large parts of the electorate (substantially the same bits, as it happens). Like the dementia tax, it's a perfectly good policy. But avaricious boomers mentally investing their parents' wealth will be quite unjustifiably furious.
It's a very sensitive policy area. Some PBers may recall that George Osborne managed to use the threat of a rise to destabilise Gordon Brown's stately progress towards an early snap election when he was still enjoying his honeymoon. Smart guy, Osborne.
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, their first car, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
What about if your adult kids live with you. Would have you to charge rent, otherwise that is gift in kind?
Interesting looking back at the opinion polls in 1983, Labour were above 30 for most of the campaign and only dipped below 30 in the last week. Different world now but just shows the only way isn't always up. I still think Labour will end up on around 34/35 with Cons around 41/42.
Very often there is a late swing to the government in the last week and especially the final two or three days of an election.
Even the 2017 election is said to have had a 2-3% swing back to the Conservatives in the final day or two without which I think it was said Labour might even have secured most seats,
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
I assume bed and board for the first 18 years also count as a gift?
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
I assume bed and board for the first 18 years also count as a gift?
Well if that's the case....
Parents face bills of almost a quarter of a million pounds to raise just one child to the age of 21, new research shows.
Another thought....this is a lifetime gift tax right. Most parents give their kids money to help with uni living costs, for a car, help with their first home (be it rental or bought). £100k will soon add up.
You could well find for a lot of people even with smaller homes, they will have used up a large chunk (if not all) of that allowance by the time they die.
Be interesting to know what percentage of that is declared.
The cash economy is alive and well, everywhere
I wasn't aware gifts had to be declared unless the person died within 7 years and it was over a certain amount?
They don't do they? I was embracing the practice in commerce and suggesting that it wouldn't be a stretch for taxable gifts. The policy would be unenforceable.
John works in a factory. He scrimps and saves and is able to buy a modest terraced house. When he retires he gets dementia. Due to house price inflation, his assets are now over the threshold and his house has to be sold to pay for his care.
Jim works in the same factory. He rents, and goes down the pub after work every day and smokes 30 cigarettes a day. He also gets dementia. He has no assets so the council pays for his care.
Labour don't have problems in suggesting better off people should pay more tax. Their problem is that they say nothing and offer nothing to the vast majority in the middle.
Labour speak of two Britains. In the first everyone is Daniel Blake's Nephew. Either in a low paid zero hour shafted by The Man job or sanctioned off Universal Credit whilst at your dad's funeral in the midst of Cancer treatment. In the other Britain everyone is Jacob Rees-Mogg levels of caricature. That almost everyone voting in this election is NEITHER of these is the pronblem.
For all of his many failings - and they are vast - Shagger Johnson is at least someone that most people could have a pint with. Same with Farage. Swinson, Sturgeon, Lucas - all normal. Not Corbyn. Never speaks to the majority of people in the 80% of the population. Looks ANGRY all the time and can't speak without SHOUTING. On AND ON.
Another thought....this is a lifetime gift tax right. Most parents give their kids money to help with uni living costs, for a car, help with their first home (be it rental or bought). £100k will soon add up.
You could well find for a lot of people even with smaller homes, they will have used up a large chunk (if not all) of that allowance by the time they die.
Be interesting to know what percentage of that is declared.
The cash economy is alive and well, everywhere
I wasn't aware gifts had to be declared unless the person died within 7 years and it was over a certain amount?
They don't do they? I was embracing the practice in commerce and suggesting that it wouldn't be a stretch for taxable gifts. The policy would be unenforceable.
Not unless we introduce Chinese / Russian style state snooping into our lives.....Its a good job the Labour shadow chancellor isn't a fan of such regimes.
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, their first car, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
What about if your adult kids live with you. Would have you to charge rent, otherwise that is gift in kind?
and I tell you what @HYUFD the average house price is not over £200,000 in the kind of Northern seats you think you’re going to win.
It is still over £125 000 in most of them so they would still be hit
Divide by the number of siblings. The average inheritance in 2017 was £119000. In the North it's much lower.
Again we are taking lifetime gifts made to your kids.
The report says "gifts below a certain lower limit would not have to be declared." (p.3)
But the limit is crucial. And how do you enforce it? We are talking about tracking all potential things to give to your kids over the course of 50+ years.
John works in a factory. He scrimps and saves and is able to buy a modest terraced house. When he retires he gets dementia. Due to house price inflation, his assets are now over the threshold and his house has to be sold to pay for his care.
Jim works in the same factory. He rents, and goes down the pub after work every day and smokes 30 cigarettes a day. He also gets dementia. He has no assets so the council pays for his care.
Is this fair?
Would depend whether Jim's getting his ciggies from the offie or from the pub (with the spanish writing)
If it's the former, he's paid his dues. And then some.
If Labour suffers a 4th successive defeat like 1992 (Corbyn like Kinnock losing again on his 2nd attempt) and does not pick a more centrist leader like John Smith or Tony Blair but another Corbynista, the LDs will likely replace them as the main non Tory Party, perhaps under Chuka Umunna
John Smith IIRC was seen as a safe pair of hands rather than a centrist. Paradoxically, his shadow budget for that election (increased ni) is thought to have cost Labour seats. I would not measure current political events through the past as we are on the third Tory PM in this cycle of Government and only 9 years into it! The Tories have not 'won' yet, the result for the Tories could still fall on the bad side...
Quite interesting. Nine years in and fourth GE. It's the 1970s! Four GEs in a decade!
No party except Major's 1992 win have won four on the trot since 1945. But I do wonder if this is four 'wins'. 2010 and 2017 weren't majority governments.
Standard political thinking would have a party in government for four GEs lose seats at this fourth GE. If that happens, there is almost no chance of Boris forming a government. But standard political thinking doesn't have three PMs from the same party during this time, nor does it have Brexit, nor an opposition that is truly dire.
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, their first car, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
What about if your adult kids live with you. Would have you to charge rent, otherwise that is gift in kind?
I think, as a rule of thumb, if it's covered by the current seven-year rule then it would be covered. If not, then not. So some of your more fanciful worries are moot.
In terms of paperwork the burden would fall on the recipient, since they will pay the tax, if any. So it would be a form of self-assessment with all the attendant joys that exist with that system for declaring other types of income.
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, their first car, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
What about if your adult kids live with you. Would have you to charge rent, otherwise that is gift in kind?
Francis, you are going over the hills and far far away.
If it appears (doubtful in itself) it will not involve the sort of overbearingly intrusive system you postulate here.
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
I assume bed and board for the first 18 years also count as a gift?
Why would you assume that? It doesn't count as part of the estate for IHT even if it occurred within the seven years preceding death.
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, their first car, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
What about if your adult kids live with you. Would have you to charge rent, otherwise that is gift in kind?
Francis, you are going over the hills and far far away.
If it appears (doubtful in itself) it will not involve the sort of overbearingly intrusive system you postulate here.
Trust me on this.
Then how do you make it robust against especially the wealthiest just arranging things such they don't pay. Labour are saying it is lifetime tax.
At the very least, every year people will have to declare if they made any gifts (or gifts in kind) to the tax authorities.
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
I assume bed and board for the first 18 years also count as a gift?
Why would you assume that? It doesn't count as part of the estate for IHT even if it occurred within the seven years preceding death.
John works in a factory. He scrimps and saves and is able to buy a modest terraced house. When he retires he gets dementia. Due to house price inflation, his assets are now over the threshold and his house has to be sold to pay for his care.
Jim works in the same factory. He rents, and goes down the pub after work every day and smokes 30 cigarettes a day. He also gets dementia. He has no assets so the council pays for his care.
Is this fair?
Would depend whether Jim's getting his ciggies from the offie or from the pub (with the spanish writing)
If it's the former, he's paid his dues. And then some.
The headline of the thread shows the futility (or stupidity) of taking hypothetical polling seriously, let alone staking money based on it
Does it?
Surely it's simply a reflection of how much has changed in the last six months. You can't be suggesting that if we'd had a general election in July, instead of a Conservative Party leadership election, that the same changes in betting sentiment would have occurred?
and I tell you what @HYUFD the average house price is not over £200,000 in the kind of Northern seats you think you’re going to win.
It is still over £125 000 in most of them so they would still be hit
Divide by the number of siblings. The average inheritance in 2017 was £119000. In the North it's much lower.
Again we are taking lifetime gifts made to your kids.
The report says "gifts below a certain lower limit would not have to be declared." (p.3)
But the limit is crucial. And how do you enforce it? We are talking about tracking all potential things to give to your kids over the course of 50+ years.
If it works like in Ireland, (and in UK for IHT), it's £3k per person.
Parents still get the better deal. It's a pleasure as well as a duty to look after your kids when they are growing up. Come their turn to look after you, duty is still very much involved but the pleasure is not so much.
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, their first car, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
What about if your adult kids live with you. Would have you to charge rent, otherwise that is gift in kind?
I think, as a rule of thumb, if it's covered by the current seven-year rule then it would be covered. If not, then not. So some of your more fanciful worries are moot.
In terms of paperwork the burden would fall on the recipient, since they will pay the tax, if any. So it would be a form of self-assessment with all the attendant joys that exist with that system for declaring other types of income.
I doubt the seven-year rule will be kept given they call it a "lifetime" gift tax. But the report does propose an improvement to the tax infrastructure "made possible by digital technologies which make the tracking of asset transfers and self-reporting of income easier to achieve". Labour need to couch tax reform as squeezing the rich until the pips squeak and not leave room for the Tories to portray it as the state robbing the ordinary family that helps out or leaves assets, to the tune of low six figures at most, to the younger generation.
John works in a factory. He scrimps and saves and is able to buy a modest terraced house. When he retires he gets dementia. Due to house price inflation, his assets are now over the threshold and his house has to be sold to pay for his care.
Jim works in the same factory. He rents, and goes down the pub after work every day and smokes 30 cigarettes a day. He also gets dementia. He has no assets so the council pays for his care.
Is this fair?
Would depend whether Jim's getting his ciggies from the offie or from the pub (with the spanish writing)
If it's the former, he's paid his dues. And then some.
and I tell you what @HYUFD the average house price is not over £200,000 in the kind of Northern seats you think you’re going to win.
It is still over £125 000 in most of them so they would still be hit
But if Labour are smart they'll portray it as a way of transferring money from the million pound property owners down south to the down to earth northern types where houses still only cost a couple of hundred thousand. Indeed my guess is that is exactly what their plan is. They really don't want to lose their base in the north of England.
and I tell you what @HYUFD the average house price is not over £200,000 in the kind of Northern seats you think you’re going to win.
It is still over £125 000 in most of them so they would still be hit
Divide by the number of siblings. The average inheritance in 2017 was £119000. In the North it's much lower.
Again we are taking lifetime gifts made to your kids.
The report says "gifts below a certain lower limit would not have to be declared." (p.3)
But the limit is crucial. And how do you enforce it? We are talking about tracking all potential things to give to your kids over the course of 50+ years.
Basically it would be the following rules, but you'd have to keep track of a lifetime's worth of non-exempted gifts.
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, their first car, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
What about if your adult kids live with you. Would have you to charge rent, otherwise that is gift in kind?
I think, as a rule of thumb, if it's covered by the current seven-year rule then it would be covered. If not, then not. So some of your more fanciful worries are moot.
In terms of paperwork the burden would fall on the recipient, since they will pay the tax, if any. So it would be a form of self-assessment with all the attendant joys that exist with that system for declaring other types of income.
I doubt the seven-year rule will be kept given they call it a "lifetime" gift tax. But the report does propose an improvement to the tax infrastructure "made possible by digital technologies which make the tracking of asset transfers and self-reporting of income easier to achieve". Labour need to couch tax reform as squeezing the rich until the pips squeak and not leave room for the Tories to portray it as the state robbing the ordinary family that helps out or leaves assets, to the tune of low six figures at most, to the younger generation.
John works in a factory. He scrimps and saves and is able to buy a modest terraced house. When he retires he gets dementia. Due to house price inflation, his assets are now over the threshold and his house has to be sold to pay for his care.
Jim works in the same factory. He rents, and goes down the pub after work every day and smokes 30 cigarettes a day. He also gets dementia. He has no assets so the council pays for his care.
Is this fair?
Would depend whether Jim's getting his ciggies from the offie or from the pub (with the spanish writing)
If it's the former, he's paid his dues. And then some.
Keep 50+ years of financial records, or enroll the entire population into self assessment.
Family tragedy a nice little earner for comrade McDonnell. 3 beds? That'll be 40 grand please, you do live in a normal northern town after all. Think yourself lucky, I took some grieving southerners for a quarter million.
16:00pm 14/11/19 - Cut off for candidate nominations!
Looks for announcement that after press found details of unfortunate, ill advised social media posts, I will not be contesting the seat of Dunny on The Wold.
and I tell you what @HYUFD the average house price is not over £200,000 in the kind of Northern seats you think you’re going to win.
It is still over £125 000 in most of them so they would still be hit
Divide by the number of siblings. The average inheritance in 2017 was £119000. In the North it's much lower.
Again we are taking lifetime gifts made to your kids.
The report says "gifts below a certain lower limit would not have to be declared." (p.3)
But the limit is crucial. And how do you enforce it? We are talking about tracking all potential things to give to your kids over the course of 50+ years.
If it works like in Ireland, (and in UK for IHT), it's £3k per person.
Didn't realise they already used a similar system in Ireland. See here.
Their main threshold is much higher than the mooted £125k, at €335k, but they have lower thresholds for gifts received from people less directly related to the recipient.
“On the whole, the focus group participants argued for wealth to be more fully taxed,” the report said. “But they were almost unanimously opposed to taxation of inheritance, regardless of their political views.
“Their arguments were striking, emotive and mostly unequivocal. These discussions were excellent examples of how people are able to hold fundamentally contradictory views simultaneously. People believe that wealth should be taxed and inequalities of wealth reduced, but inherited wealth should not be touched.”
and I tell you what @HYUFD the average house price is not over £200,000 in the kind of Northern seats you think you’re going to win.
It is still over £125 000 in most of them so they would still be hit
Divide by the number of siblings. The average inheritance in 2017 was £119000. In the North it's much lower.
Again we are taking lifetime gifts made to your kids.
The report says "gifts below a certain lower limit would not have to be declared." (p.3)
But the limit is crucial. And how do you enforce it? We are talking about tracking all potential things to give to your kids over the course of 50+ years.
If it works like in Ireland, (and in UK for IHT), it's £3k per person.
Didn't realise they already used a similar system in Ireland. See here.
Their main threshold is much higher than the mooted £125k, at €335k, but they have lower thresholds for gifts received from people less directly related to the recipient.
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, their first car, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
What about if your adult kids live with you. Would have you to charge rent, otherwise that is gift in kind?
I think, as a rule of thumb, if it's covered by the current seven-year rule then it would be covered. If not, then not. So some of your more fanciful worries are moot.
In terms of paperwork the burden would fall on the recipient, since they will pay the tax, if any. So it would be a form of self-assessment with all the attendant joys that exist with that system for declaring other types of income.
I doubt the seven-year rule will be kept given they call it a "lifetime" gift tax. But the report does propose an improvement to the tax infrastructure "made possible by digital technologies which make the tracking of asset transfers and self-reporting of income easier to achieve". Labour need to couch tax reform as squeezing the rich until the pips squeak and not leave room for the Tories to portray it as the state robbing the ordinary family that helps out or leaves assets, to the tune of low six figures at most, to the younger generation.
What I meant is not that a seven year limit would be retained, but that "gifts" such as Lego sets for Christmas won't have to be declared if they don't require declaring under that present system.
Dare I be the one to say that Conservatives should have ignored inheritance tax today, and waited until it was actually published in the Labour manifesto?
Given the media coverage, there’s no way the proposal will make it to the document. There’s plenty of other Labour Conference commitments to go on in the meantime.
A prediction. If labour put this lifetime gift tax in their manifesto they will drop to below 25 on average within a week. It is more suicidal than the 83 manifesto by leaps and bounds
Keep 50+ years of financial records, or enroll the entire population into self assessment.
As many people as possible need to be in PAYE. The atomisation of govt systems for income and outgoings puts an unnecessary accounting burden on normal folk.
Dare I be the one to say that Conservatives should have ignored inheritance tax today, and waited until it was actually published in the Labour manifesto?
Given the media coverage, there’s no way the proposal will make it to the document. There’s plenty of other Labour Conference commitments to go on in the meantime.
Dare I be the one to say that Conservatives should have ignored inheritance tax today, and waited until it was actually published in the Labour manifesto?
Given the media coverage, there’s no way the proposal will make it to the document. There’s plenty of other Labour Conference commitments to go on in the meantime.
Get it out there, it doesn't matter if it's in or out the manifesto, the fact it is being considered is damaging enough.
Worst Cancer figures ever since records began too. Every target missed.
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never trust a centralised and socialist medical system run by politicians, trust the much better systems in place in literally every other country in the developed world*
* (except the USA, where the system is equally political and equally screwed).
and I tell you what @HYUFD the average house price is not over £200,000 in the kind of Northern seats you think you’re going to win.
It is still over £125 000 in most of them so they would still be hit
Divide by the number of siblings. The average inheritance in 2017 was £119000. In the North it's much lower.
Again we are taking lifetime gifts made to your kids.
The report says "gifts below a certain lower limit would not have to be declared." (p.3)
But the limit is crucial. And how do you enforce it? We are talking about tracking all potential things to give to your kids over the course of 50+ years.
If it works like in Ireland, (and in UK for IHT), it's £3k per person.
Didn't realise they already used a similar system in Ireland. See here.
Their main threshold is much higher than the mooted £125k, at €335k, but they have lower thresholds for gifts received from people less directly related to the recipient.
Avoiders have presumably largely become evaders.
I don't have any data (if there's some out there ) it would be interesting, but wonder what the level of both evasion and avoidance is for this.
IE people not declaring gifts, regardless of if tax is payable.
I'll be surprised if Boris knows how to solve the Rubik's cube! (If he does and I meet him, I'll ask him whether he does corners or edges first, as a way to gauge whether his interests stretch beyond a) politics and b) smashing up restaurants à la Bullingdon.)
As the deadline for candidates expires in less than two hours I was looking into finding if there is a central database of which parties have submitted candidates and where?
Does anyone know of such a resource, and when it will be ready at all please?
As an aside, I was looking at whether UKIP and the CUK lot where standing, and I find that:
UKIP are going to stand in carefully selected seats where they think they can do best, and avoid splitting the Leave vote. Don't know what that means however. I presume it means this is the last hurrah and they'll stand in about 20 seats (and win none, possibly lose all their deposits) before disappearing completely next year.
CUK are standing in only three seats. Anna Soubry, Chris Leslie and Mike Gapes are restanding (the other two are not) in their seats. I imagine they will go the same was as UKIP and fail to hold any, and disappear/merge into the Lib Dems next year.
The headline of the thread shows the futility (or stupidity) of taking hypothetical polling seriously, let alone staking money based on it
Does it?
Surely it's simply a reflection of how much has changed in the last six months. You can't be suggesting that if we'd had a general election in July, instead of a Conservative Party leadership election, that the same changes in betting sentiment would have occurred?
I'm suggesting that polls taken when there is no election in the near future aren't worth paying any attention to, and if you bet on the back of them, you'll probably lose money
Comments
It's a great policy but I'll be surprised to see it.
It could well reduce tax receipts.
https://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/1194986366406418432?s=20
Reason being, if you start classifying intellect, character & personality, face & figure as part of LUCK, you end up in quite a nihilist place whereby virtually everything is pre-ordained, there is no free will, and nothing is ever therefore truly admirable or reprehensible. It's the sort of suffocating amoral equality that would lead one to arguing that Ted Bundy should get a council house. One for after midnight in the student dorms not a place of maturity and grounded debate such as this.
Do these idiots not remember the desperation Labour caused widows who had the misfortune to have husbands die when they created Capital Transfer Tax in 1974 ? Even they had to change that !
It's a good reason for the threshold to be higher if you change to a system of taxing inheritance received, rather than inheritance given.
Astonishing
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, their first car, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
What about if your adult kids live with you. Would have you to charge rent, otherwise that is gift in kind?
What could possibly go wrong.
Even the 2017 election is said to have had a 2-3% swing back to the Conservatives in the final day or two without which I think it was said Labour might even have secured most seats,
Parents face bills of almost a quarter of a million pounds to raise just one child to the age of 21, new research shows.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11360819/Average-cost-of-raising-a-child-in-UK-230000.htm
John works in a factory. He scrimps and saves and is able to buy a modest terraced house. When he retires he gets dementia. Due to house price inflation, his assets are now over the threshold and his house has to be sold to pay for his care.
Jim works in the same factory. He rents, and goes down the pub after work every day and smokes 30 cigarettes a day. He also gets dementia. He has no assets so the council pays for his care.
Is this fair?
If it's the former, he's paid his dues. And then some.
It's the 1970s! Four GEs in a decade!
No party except Major's 1992 win have won four on the trot since 1945.
But I do wonder if this is four 'wins'. 2010 and 2017 weren't majority governments.
Standard political thinking would have a party in government for four GEs lose seats at this fourth GE. If that happens, there is almost no chance of Boris forming a government.
But standard political thinking doesn't have three PMs from the same party during this time, nor does it have Brexit, nor an opposition that is truly dire.
In terms of paperwork the burden would fall on the recipient, since they will pay the tax, if any. So it would be a form of self-assessment with all the attendant joys that exist with that system for declaring other types of income.
If it appears (doubtful in itself) it will not involve the sort of overbearingly intrusive system you postulate here.
Trust me on this.
At the very least, every year people will have to declare if they made any gifts (or gifts in kind) to the tax authorities.
Surely it's simply a reflection of how much has changed in the last six months. You can't be suggesting that if we'd had a general election in July, instead of a Conservative Party leadership election, that the same changes in betting sentiment would have occurred?
https://twitter.com/Sapere_vivere/status/1194752683804110854?s=20
https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/gifts
Frankly the idea of doing so is completely nuts.
Inherited wealth should be taxed, but for God's sake make it as simple as possible.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/14/ae-waiting-times-in-england-hit-worst-ever-level?CMP=share_btn_tw
So not all bad I hear?
Say hello Labour.
https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1194992336423575555
Coming to SNP or Labour or Tory leaflet in Scotland.
16:00pm 14/11/19 - Cut off for candidate nominations!
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/1195006683875024901?s=20
For everyone interested in election voting systems the plus mathematics website has put up three articles about elections and mathematics.
Their main threshold is much higher than the mooted £125k, at €335k, but they have lower thresholds for gifts received from people less directly related to the recipient.
“On the whole, the focus group participants argued for wealth to be more fully taxed,” the report said. “But they were almost unanimously opposed to taxation of inheritance, regardless of their political views.
“Their arguments were striking, emotive and mostly unequivocal. These discussions were excellent examples of how people are able to hold fundamentally contradictory views simultaneously. People believe that wealth should be taxed and inequalities of wealth reduced, but inherited wealth should not be touched.”
Toxic.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1194983425150717955?s=20
This is exactly the mistake made in 2017
https://twitter.com/RupertLowe10/status/1195008427778596867?s=20
Given the media coverage, there’s no way the proposal will make it to the document. There’s plenty of other Labour Conference commitments to go on in the meantime.
So, well done, you just argued that increasing tax on higher earners is done solely from envy and spite. Tory!
How many more?
IE people not declaring gifts, regardless of if tax is payable.
Coming to Scottish Conservative, Scottish Labour or SNP leaflets very soon.
Taxes have gone up to deal with the deficits and parlous govt finances left by Brown, who operated on a spend/borrow now, tax later basis.