We need a land and wealth tax to replace income and transaction tax.

grizzly1911

cepheus wrote: »

In an ideal world it's difficult to justify any unearned income, but perhaps a lower limit similar to income tax,

Perhaps all monies should be taxed based on a 5 year average. So if everything coming in terms of investment, inheritance, wages over the 5 years is say £200,000 you are taxed assuming you have £40,000 per year of income.

As t inheritance is the one thing that is likely to distort the average markedly, investment and wages already being subject to tax at appropriate rates, are you suggesting IHT is scrapped and it is the recipient that is taxed? What about life time gifts?

I know you are only putting out examples but £40K seems a pretty low threshold in today's world. (I haven't a clue whether that apostrophe is in the right place or relevant BTW)

robmatic

N1AK wrote: »

Someone who inherits £1,000,000 (hardly a vast sum) already has a vast advantage over someone who does not. That money (if given at birth) could provide a £750,000 house, pay for university and still provide an income of £40,000 for life all in real terms. If tax on inheritance or wealth is avoided and taxes on income used then for someone without assets to ever reach such a position would become ever harder than the considerable challenge it would already be.

Someone who inherits this non-vast sum will currently have a quarter of a million pounds IHT bill to pay.

grizzly1911

robmatic wrote: »

Someone who inherits this non-vast sum will currently have a quarter of a million pounds IHT bill to pay.

Why?

As a beneficiary It will already have been paid.

Generali

Personally, I'm hugely in favour of paying more tax after I'm dead than before. I'm surprised this isn't more popular. What's not to like?

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

Personally, I'm hugely in favour of paying more tax after I'm dead than before. I'm surprised this isn't more popular. What's not to like?

If you knew how long you had got it would be nice to max out on debt though. Leave those credit cards full. With all assets passed on previously.:cool:

Jennifer_Jane

Just been listening to the debate in Parliament. I agree with the above comments against it (the survey was of 1697 people for YouGov, by the way).

But to listen to Labour and one MP (sorry, don't know which) stood up and said that if the Mansion Tax caused problems to people then they could let/share their properties to bring in the income to pay it (and to mew he said to find ways to pay it!)

Now bearing in mind the immense house price inflation in the past, it is possible that even quite small houses could fall into Mansion Tax levels, especially with fiscal drag.

So much for the party who are supposed to look after the poor. This is just a cynical attempt to split the Coalition and I'm heartened that the LibDems do not appear to be falling for it.

When asked if this would be part of the Labour manifesto in 2015, no Labour MP was prepared to confirm that the Mansion Tax would remain.

Labour are the "nasty party", it was they who removed the 10p tax rate without a care for the poorer parts of the community (it affected my pension income considerably, but I prefer the Coalition's increasing of the personal allowance, naturally).

And whilst I'm talking about Labour's being the nasty party - just a reminder that it was Labour who increased the State Pension for the 2010/2011 tax year by the legal minimum of 2.5%. BUT, they did not include the "extras" that make up our State Pension, ie the Addidional State Pension, the Extra State Pension and the Graduated Retirement Benefit.

Bearing in mind that the Extra State Pension is the Deferred Pension usually done by desperately poor people who don't get the full pension, and that it was always categorically promised, it is truly shameful that Labour did not increase these bits and pieces along with the State Pension per se. Since that terrible year, the Coalition have increased the complete State Pension by CPI.

You won't find this recorded anywhere, it's just a hidden, cynical way of depriving the poorest in society.

cepheus

small house, 2 million lower level, where, the City?

I suppose they have the option of moving into a mansion elsewhere in the country or/and releasing the equity through a financial scheme. Come off it, 2 million isn't poor!

If they can't manage to tax this category, they couldn't tax a money printing machine. The lib dems. who vote against their own idea will be shamed, and voted out.

PS 2 million is the lowest line on this graph.

wotsthat

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

So much for the party who are supposed to look after the poor. This is just a cynical attempt to split the Coalition and I'm heartened that the LibDems do not appear to be falling for it.

There are so many areas where Labour should be holding the government to account but they've chosen to do this instead. It's quite an amateurish game of politics being played by Labour.

Cathy Jamieson (a shadow economic secretary) was on Radio 4's Today programme this morning. Evan Davies basically scoffed at her suggestions that this wasn't a political stunt and came as close as I've heard him to calling a guest an idiot.

Lightweights - all of them.

grizzly1911

cepheus wrote: »

PS 2 million is the lowest line on this graph.

If £2m was the limit fine (by me) but early you wer suggesting £40K average overall income. You don't get mansions of that magnitude on that income. The odd couple in prime London locations perhaps.


The problem with all taxation it starts of only affecting a few and then when it gets forgotten about it slowly starts affecting more and more until the demarcation line becomes academic.

Higher rate tax for example more and more people are being sucked in yet their overall disposable income is being sliced by inflation.

The one I always liked was the higher paid employee and Benefits In Kind where the threshold never moved from £8500 since the early 80s. I think they have now reversed it a define people as lower paid employees if they don't reach it. Probably closer to £35K now using RPI salary inflation would probably make it even higher.

N1AK

robmatic wrote: »

Someone who inherits this non-vast sum will currently have a quarter of a million pounds IHT bill to pay.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious and yet adding nothing to the discussion that wasn't already known.