Conservatives in disarray over 'sooner or later' tax promise

Entertainer

The difference with IHT is that it is paid on capital unlike other taxes which are paid on income or gains or spending. This is why it is so unpopular- right before the Conservative Party conference was held there was a poll which found that it was one of the most unpopular taxes. And alot of ordinary people do pay it. A £300,000 estate is not "rich" or "Tory friends", that kind of attitude is symptomatic of the pathetic, small mindedness of alot of the people/losers in this country. "Ohhh he's got ten thousand pounds, he's rich." It's exactly these prejudiced views of money and economics that is the reason why we are in this mess in the first place.

Then you have the examples of two sisters living in the same house and one of them dying.

As for using the tax system for so called social engineering by employing punitive rates by that token you should be abolishing private schools which prop up the "class system" 100 times more. And there's plenty more social engineering that we can get into if you want to go down that path.

dandy-candy

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Even in London, most people will have a net worth well below £300k, and yet more will join them in the next year.

Sorry but this is absolute twaddle - if you look at house prices in the areas of London where its actually SAFE to bring up your children you won't find a family sized (3 bedroom house) that is under the IHT limit. Certainly there are cheap areas in London but I personally don't want my kids stabbed for their lunch money or mobile phone while walking to school.

lostinrates

moggylover wrote: »

Good luck with your project, I am also keeping my eye open for a suitable smallholding (although no horses for us, I couldn't afford the vets bills:eek: on top of the other pets we have) but it will still only be possible to keep it running if I continue to earn elsewhere.

Good luck to you too. I'll be sad when I leave here. I saw practise with my horse vet years ago, was mentored with my thesis by another vet at the same practice, who was then at a university, and worked with my small animal vet on a large animal practice. Two of the other local vets here have enlisted me on an adcvisory basis in the past as well. :DThey all know my limitations, and lack thereof, and so it helps a lot.

Last vets bill for the special girl was £175 ish. He said I didn't need the test I wanted run, I said we did need it, and the client being always right and knowing his boss knew me when I was ''a professional'' ran the test. Sadly I am right and the attending vet was wrong. But it did save a whole lot of time wasting. Last time I needed a vet out for a non routine visit for a horse was, ooh, 9 years ago? Something like that. Dogs and cats are more trouble some, and always go wrong on emergency hours, but thankfully, I am able to assist vet's myself: ne need for a vet nurse. Small animal vet jokes that I've helped stitched my/families animals more times than he's been able to help his own.

There are times though, its harder. I lost one of our favourite cockerals last year. He'd been upset, though not damaged by a fox, and got stressed, and then contracted an infection. I was injecting him with his medecine twice a day and he took it worse than any animal I've ever done, and then didn't even live

chewmylegoff

dandy-candy wrote: »

Sorry but this is absolute twaddle - if you look at house prices in the areas of London where its actually SAFE to bring up your children you won't find a family sized (3 bedroom house) that is under the IHT limit. Certainly there are cheap areas in London but I personally don't want my kids stabbed for their lunch money or mobile phone while walking to school.

net worth, net worth.

not value of property before subtracting mortgage debt.

and anyway, the majority of people live in the areas that are rubbish, so the point still stands, i think. it wasn't an assertion about the net worth of middle class people in professional jobs who can afford to live in the nice bits.

dandy-candy

chewmylegoff wrote: »

net worth, net worth.

not value of property before subtracting mortgage debt.

and anyway, the majority of people live in the areas that are rubbish, so the point still stands, i think. it wasn't an assertion about the net worth of middle class people in professional jobs who can afford to live in the nice bits.

There isn't a mortgage to be subtracted on our house as it was a priority to be paid off because we don't want to have debts. Neither of us have ever had a credit card either - only debit cards. We are incredibly frugal and in 14 years have only been abroad twice. Hub is in the family trade (locksmith) so works 6 days and also any emergency night jobs - yes we do stick out amongst of our neighbours most of whom are bankers/doctors etc but the irony is that THEY are the newcomers - i'm the 5th generation of my family to live in this tiny suburb - the affluent homeowners crept up in the 80's. My hub is a "local" too although he did live in Harlesden in his mid-twenty's - that helped make up his mind that it's worth working every hour you can to bring up your kids in a "nice" area!

moggylover

lostinrates wrote: »

Good luck to you too. I'll be sad when I leave here. I saw practise with my horse vet years ago, was mentored with my thesis by another vet at the same practice, who was then at a university, and worked with my small animal vet on a large animal practice. Two of the other local vets here have enlisted me on an adcvisory basis in the past as well. :DThey all know my limitations, and lack thereof, and so it helps a lot.

Last vets bill for the special girl was £175 ish. He said I didn't need the test I wanted run, I said we did need it, and the client being always right and knowing his boss knew me when I was ''a professional'' ran the test. Sadly I am right and the attending vet was wrong. But it did save a whole lot of time wasting. Last time I needed a vet out for a non routine visit for a horse was, ooh, 9 years ago? Something like that. Dogs and cats are more trouble some, and always go wrong on emergency hours, but thankfully, I am able to assist vet's myself: ne need for a vet nurse. Small animal vet jokes that I've helped stitched my/families animals more times than he's been able to help his own.

There are times though, its harder. I lost one of our favourite cockerals last year. He'd been upset, though not damaged by a fox, and got stressed, and then contracted an infection. I was injecting him with his medecine twice a day and he took it worse than any animal I've ever done, and then didn't even live

I know what you mean about pets like cats and dogs and out of hours illnesses:rolleyes: .

Sorry to hear about your cockerel, they can be a pain when they decide to get ill because if really upset they just seem to "decide to die" and nothing seems to work. Turkeys are even worse! Running about and growing well one day, and dead the next for no apparent reason . Had four to grow on one year ready for Christmas: ended up with only one left:rolleyes: and could not even blame the foxes unless they had just popped their head in the pen and shocked the silly things to death:rolleyes:

My Dad always said I should have been a vet (but tbf my maths and science were just not going to be good enough:o ) but my Mum always said I should have married one:D .

My menagerie probably costs me more than a horse would, but I understand my small animals and know enough about them to be able to deal with all but the most serious illnesses myself (down to years of working with them in RSPCA clinics and other rescue centres) and am also pretty good with using homoeopathic medicines to assist with longer term, incurable, problems instead of conventional drugs and would not feel confident to do this with a horse where my experience is limited to mucking out in return for rides and assisting as "manpower" when large rescue operations have gone on and lots of bodies have been needed for driving horse trailers and whinching horses to standing that have been in a horrible state and in need of urgent assistance.

There is room at the back of my garden for a double stable and a small yard if I wanted it, and we have had temporary shelters up there with the occasional rescue pony for short periods. The problem of finding enough suitable grazing land at an affordable price and close to home would remain then though and so I have never been terribly tempted.

We want the smallholding for growing our own, and some chucks and a very few sheep, and if acreage allows, possibly a house cow and (if not near other houses) a piggy to try to become semi-self-sufficient in food, but as I would have to rely on others (and the kids) for help even with that during bad ,mobility periods I would be loathe to take on a horse on top of everything else. I still love them though:o but there are lots of friends with horses that I can make a fuss of and groom without all the other expenses:D

I really do hope you get the place you want and that everything goes well for you.

Rochdale_Pioneers

dandy-candy wrote: »

Sorry but this is absolute twaddle - if you look at house prices in the areas of London where its actually SAFE to bring up your children you won't find a family sized (3 bedroom house) that is under the IHT limit. Certainly there are cheap areas in London but I personally don't want my kids stabbed for their lunch money or mobile phone while walking to school.

And you are right to a point. they are over the IHT limit as it stands today. But will they be over the limit in 30-40 years when the estate would be paid? The reason why only 7% of estates pay IHT even at a £300k limit is that people tend to spend cash as they get older - holidays galore in their 50s/60s, the family house sold and downsized to something smaller and cheaper or sold to pay for elderly care, money transferred to children and grandchildren. And thats saying nothing about the bottom limit for IHT which increases over time.

You can't say "Houses in London cost more than £300k therefore we're all going to have to pay IHT" because the facts disagree. If both parents die tomorrow in a freak yachting accident then maybe, but in practice only the very richest estates ever pay this. It IS a tax cut for the rich - not as a class prejudice statement but simply one of looking at the facts.

Entertainer

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

And you are right to a point. they are over the IHT limit as it stands today. But will they be over the limit in 30-40 years when the estate would be paid? The reason why only 7% of estates pay IHT even at a £300k limit is that people tend to spend cash as they get older - holidays galore in their 50s/60s, the family house sold and downsized to something smaller and cheaper or sold to pay for elderly care, money transferred to children and grandchildren. And thats saying nothing about the bottom limit for IHT which increases over time.

You can't say "Houses in London cost more than £300k therefore we're all going to have to pay IHT" because the facts disagree. If both parents die tomorrow in a freak yachting accident then maybe, but in practice only the very richest estates ever pay this. It IS a tax cut for the rich - not as a class prejudice statement but simply one of looking at the facts.

But it's not just "the rich" though, whoever they are. If someone has saved and invested in their lifetime (instead of spending it all or alternatively being so useless and narrow minded that they didn't earn it in the first place), that, along with their house, is easily enough to take them over the threshold.

Generali

moggylover wrote: »

Generali, I think that would bring about a catastrophic decline in farming in areas like this, if I am reading you right, and I do not believe that this is in the interests of the economy.

Whilst I acknowledge that vast arable farms "probably" still show relatively good profit margins, and whilst I acknowledge that a bit of imaginative juggling on profits on farms goes on (although nowhere near as widespread as in finance) I'm afraid that many a farmer around here probably only has a net income of somewhere in the region of £20,000/£25,000 per annum (mostly dairy and sheep, not a great area for veg., etc.) and even if one allows that after the "juggling" this is possibly doubled that is not much of an income for a job which is basically a lifestyle rather than a business and one expects to work 365 days a year and sometimes 24 hr days (i.e. during lambing season) where you grab a doze in the sheds:D .

We are already far too dependant on food being imported, and if we start penalising farming families even more then I believe that would be very dangerous to the industry and would leave us even more exposed in the long term.

Already around here, we see large numbers of "next generation" farm kids leaving the industry because the family farm will not support the whole family, and lots of farmers wives that have to have outside jobs in order to keep the farm going. Those that I know that have bought farms on mortgages/loans instead of inheriting them are often really struggling and if it were not that they wanted to live away from the city type rush they would get out. They are not really encouraging their kids to take it on afterwards either, just trying to keep their heads above water to provide a nicer area for their kids to grow up in.

Many families that inherit a farm are also having to sell off the original farmhouse in order to get rid of what death duties there are, and sometimes then it is taking years to get planning for another home on the farm (and I know several families that have ended up living in caravans within a barn for as much as 7 or 8 years just in order to get that planning.

I am all in favour of taxing vast inherited wealth, and also finding a way of closing all tax loopholes but I really think that if those inheriting farms had to mortgage them then the industry would be killed off very quickly.

Hi moggylover,

To clarify, the point of my argument is that IHT avoidance would be available to farmers but hopefully not to people looking to buy farmland to avoid IHT. Perhaps the method could be improved upon.

Guy_Montag

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.

Sorry Gen, this is a silly idea (not the 80% tax bit - well maybe that too), but the family home bit.

What this would mean is even more 90 year-olds living in unsuitable four-bed family accommodation as a way to pass as much money onto their kids as possible. In many cases it would be (is) far more sensible for them to free up the money from their home & trade down to a smaller place opening up their current dwelling as a family home for a, err, family. Think of it as effeciency of living space. This has ben exaserpated by government's farcical insistence that we must build 1bn homes per hectare - even though no-one wants to live in a shockingly small, 2-bed flat where you can hear the couple upstairs having sweaty jungle-sex every night.

Point two: People's natural instinct is to improve the lot for their next generation, you are, or would be taking that away from them. I think people need to be able to pass on money, heirlooms & other wealth to their children.

Point Three: (Just thought of this one) It discourages saving, something we need to encourage as much as possible in this country. After all there's no point in saving for a rainy day, when you may at any time be hit by a bus & bang it's all gone, no-one gets anything out of it.

Point Four: (& I need my bed) - rich Mum & Dad killed when their Discovery is hit by a meteorite, Chloe (10) & Joshua (8) get what? bah it was probably all on credit anyway -f'k 'em. Scratch that one.

However, I don't think that it should be completely free - as others have said, I'd rather be taxed when I'm dead than alive. So perhaps a moderate rate of 50% on anything over £500k, I'd even be willing to index it to RPI/CPI/HPI whichever is the greatest that year.