the snap general election thread

Arklight

Here is Labour's statement on land taxation.

First of all, there will be a review. There is no clear policy to introduce a land tax but it seems like the most obvious choice considering how unfair council tax is.

“We won’t be taxing people’s gardens. The Tories are throwing around false claims to try and distract from their own policies...

Our plan is to see what needs to be done to ensure that working people don’t pay more. We'll look at how we can make council tax fairer but we’ll not be introducing a separate Land Value Tax on residential property.”

The Dairy Farmer is a business and can rest easy.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Arklight wrote: »

About £999,000 less than Theresa May's Death Tax will take off him.

So that is plainly massively wrong, but iI think you owe us the benefit of your mathematics.

What would JC leave them vs TM and to make it a fair fight let's assume one of them needs 5 years of care home.

Can't wait....

Arklight

GreatApe wrote: »

BS

The tories wont tax estates upto £1million

korbin and co will put the nil rate band for a couple at £425,000 or very likely even lower than that. Its quite possible that they will also increase the tax from 40% to 45% or even 50%

I would say someone leaving a £1 million estate is quite likely to pay as much as £350,000 more in death tax if this labor government gets in

Something the media just did not talk about at all. Yet this will impact far more families far greater than the tory u turned idea of people paying for their own care

Under the Tories, someone with a £500,000 property but no savings, who requires social care will have £400,000 of their house indentured with a mandatory insurance product if they go to the doctor asking for social care.

Interest will then be payable on the £400,000 for as long as they live, and the eventual premiums will be taken from the remaining £100,000 of their estate by selling their house at a time the insurance company chooses. Their family can't hold out for the best price, or delay a sale.

Many people will wind up leaving nothing to their children if they live too long. Of course, with the Tories plans for the NHS and the retirement age going up until people are literally worked to death, I doubt that will be a problem for many of us.

GreatApe

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

So that is plainly massively wrong, but iI think you owe us the benefit of your mathematics.

What would JC leave them vs TM and to make it a fair fight let's assume one of them needs 5 years of care home.

Can't wait....

We do not know if JC will be able to give free care homes to the old or how it will be paid for we do know that they said the nil rate band will be halved from what it currently is under JC government

Anyone who has more than £425k at the end of the life is going to pay a lot more in death duties under a JC government. I suspect the 40% rate will also tend towards 50% and the £425k exemption will be lowered to £300k and I think it possible the 7 year gifting period will be increased to 20 years

GreatApe

Arklight wrote: »

Under the Tories, someone with a £500,000 property but no savings, who requires social care will have £400,000 of their house indentured with a mandatory insurance product if they go to the doctor asking for social care.

Interest will then be payable on the £400,000 for as long as they live, and the eventual premiums will be taken from the remaining £100,000 of their estate by selling their house at a time the insurance company chooses. Their family can't hold out for the best price, or delay a sale.

Many people will wind up leaving nothing to their children if they live too long. Of course, with the Tories plans for the NHS and the retirement age going up until people are literally worked to death, I doubt that will be a problem for many of us.

not many people stay in care for long it is a place people go right near the end

So someone who has an estate of £500,000 and spends 18 months in care will still be able to leave the best part of £450,000

Also dear korbin will be paying for this free care homes how?
The answer to every question can't be 'tax the rich more' because that simply shows us they are either incompetent or lying.

GreatApe

GreatApe wrote: »

We do not know if JC will be able to give free care homes to the old or how it will be paid for we do know that they said the nil rate band will be halved from what it currently is under JC government

Anyone who has more than £425k at the end of the life is going to pay a lot more in death duties under a JC government. I suspect the 40% rate will also tend towards 50% and the £425k exemption will be lowered to £300k and I think it possible the 7 year gifting period will be increased to 20 years

Of course such a policy would !!!! off so many people as to make labor unelectable the next time the GE comes around. But right now the public is walking into it blind

Also it would collect less than they think, there is little I would leave the country for but putting the IHT band to £300k and 50% tax above that and increasing the time for gifting to 20 years would make me leave for a country that had little or no IHTs

kinger101

GreatApe wrote: »

We do not know if JC will be able to give free care homes to the old or how it will be paid for we do know that they said the nil rate band will be halved from what it currently is under JC government

Anyone who has more than £425k at the end of the life is going to pay a lot more in death duties under a JC government. I suspect the 40% rate will also tend towards 50% and the £425k exemption will be lowered to £300k and I think it possible the 7 year gifting period will be increased to 20 years

For me, that would be a reason to vote Labour. The gap between those who do and do not inherit wealth is becoming wider.

I can't see 20 years being brought in instead of 7 though. A that point, you might was well just bring in a gift tax instead. Keeping 7 years of records is enough.

The Tories are slowing trying to erode the the amount they collect from IHT so they'll have an excuse to abolish it.

I think IHT needs a major overhaul.

POPPYOSCAR

Arklight wrote: »

Again, a land tax is taxation calculated against the value of the unimproved land not the amount of it that you own.

If you don't have many assets you won't pay much tax.

How is that not fair?

So you are saying that despite a tax being levied if you do not have sufficient income the tax will not have to be paid?

Do not think so.

GreatApe

kinger101 wrote: »

For me, that would be a reason to vote Labour. The gap between those who do and do not inherit wealth is becoming wider.

I can't see 20 years being brought in instead of 7 though. A that point, you might was well just bring in a gift tax instead. Keeping 7 years of records is enough.

The Tories are slowing trying to erode the the amount they collect from IHT so they'll have an excuse to abolish it.

I think IHT needs a major overhaul.

It is not about the people who receive it, it is about the people who give it

Why after having worked a combined 100 years (age 18-68 x couple) and paid tax on your income, what you have managed to save is then going to be taxed another 40% perhaps 50% on your death? No thanks.

kinger101

GreatApe wrote: »

It is not about the people who receive it, it is about the people who give it

Why after having worked a combined 100 years (age 18-68 x couple) and paid tax on your income, what you have managed to save is then going to be taxed another 40% perhaps 50% on your death? No thanks.

(a) Living people notice being taxed more than the dead.
(b) All money is taxed multiple times. My salary has three taxes (Employer NI/Employee NI, IT). I might then spend it and pay VAT and various duties. Of course, I'll also pay council tax out of my already taxed income.
(c) Most of the wealth is probably due to capital gains on property. Not really "saved".