Conservatives in disarray over 'sooner or later' tax promise

Sir_Humphrey

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5956414.ece

So who will win out, Ken or George? Perhaps Ken Clarke agrees with me that abolishing IHT is a bit daft (to put it mildly).

Has this been posted already BTW, I was a bit 'surprised' that it had not already been mentioned, as far as I could see. Could this board be biased towards the Tories perchance?

Generali

Personally, I think IHT should be paid at a rate of (say) 80% on all assets other than the family home (excluding associated land) unless there isn't a family home in which case IHT-free assets should reflect that.

People shouldn't get a free ride in life just because Daddy was rich.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

People shouldn't get a free ride in life just because Daddy was rich.

I think we can agree on that one.

Heyman_2

Oh look, it's the Shadow Shadow Chancellor sticking his foot in it again. :rolleyes:

This country is sleepwalking into a Tory win at the next general election, and it's all going to end in tears.

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

Personally, I think IHT should be paid at a rate of (say) 80% on all assets other than the family home (excluding associated land) unless there isn't a family home in which case IHT-free assets should reflect that.

People shouldn't get a free ride in life just because Daddy was rich.

I hink that would be a good arrangent. The difficulties with lands for essential employment (eg farming families) are dealt with in existing legislation AIUI.

kennyboy66_2

God help us if this is the Tories "flagship policy".

They might as well accept that taxes will have to rise in conjunction with spending being cut.

VAT, freeze on personal allowances, 50% top tax rates, limit on pension tax relief, excise duties,

Generali

lostinrates wrote: »

I hink that would be a good arrangent. The difficulties with lands for essential employment (eg farming families) are dealt with in existing legislation AIUI.

Under my regime, farmland would only be included up to being a secondary source of income. Tertiary and beyond you have to stump up your 80%.

An heir would be able to use the 20% (s)he inherited as a deposit and the income from the land as income to make mortgage payments.

Cannon_Fodder

Isn't this a non-story?

"Big surprise that the Economy is so !!!!ed up that no-one can make tax cutting promises at this time"...

Not exactly "headline of the week" material.

dealsearcher

1. You pay tax on your salary
2. You pay tax on anything you purchase with your net salary
3. You pay tax on the the interest of any savings you have after 1. and 2.
4. You pay tax when you die on what's left after being 'prudent' all your life

How many times does the government need to tax us?

Generali

dealsearcher wrote: »

How many times does the government need to tax us?

Many times if they are to maintain spending at a rate considerably below where it is now.

To maintain current spending they have to tax income, wealth and interest several times over and still run a massive deficit.

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

Under my regime, farmland would only be included up to being a secondary source of income. Tertiary and beyond you have to stump up your 80%.

An heir would be able to use the 20% (s)he inherited as a deposit and the income from the land as income to make mortgage payments.

Still fair IMO. Unless parents have died unfortunately earning the 'heirs' would have had time to buy in to the farm, if its important to them. Likewise other family business I guess. The only occasion see it as being a bit tough is in the case of, say, someone whose parent had established a very, very large business and who had no chance in hell of 'paying it off' but then the portion inherited, and otherwise bought into would be able to sell it and take expertise to a new venture or employer. It would seem it might also stop hapless children 'taking over from Daddy' and running something into the ground, and having no experience of other then 'the family business' as an employer. Got to be better for other employees.