the snap general election thread

economic

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.

if you really want this to happen, just watch productivity fall off a cliff (people less likely to work hard to make money as they know itll be taxed anyway) and/or people with wealth move it outside the country so to avoid the taxes (with all the negative effects of that) and at the extreme as GreatApe says move country taking the wealth with them in a better competitive country with less taxes.

do not underestimate the power of human incentives. if they dont like something, they will change and by no means will it be for the good of the country.

you will then be left with a basket case of a country.

inequality is a good thing. equality is bad (because no one is the same and there varying of degrees of intellegence and hard work and luck). but we also prefer less inequality but not at the expense of anyone.

kinger101

economic wrote: »

if you really want this to happen, just watch productivity fall off a cliff (people less likely to work hard to make money as they know itll be taxed anyway) and/or people with wealth move it outside the country so to avoid the taxes (with all the negative effects of that) and at the extreme as GreatApe says move country taking the wealth with them in a better competitive country with less taxes.

do not underestimate the power of human incentives. if they dont like something, they will change and by no means will it be for the good of the country.

you will then be left with a basket case of a country.

inequality is a good thing. equality is bad. but we also prefer less inequality but not at the expense of anyone.

The IHT regime we had in 1997 didn't cause these problems. If you're UK domiciled, moving wealth out the country won't do you much good anyway.

Aren't you the same poster as GreatApe?

economic

kinger101 wrote: »

The IHT regime we had in 1997 didn't cause these problems. If you're UK domiciled, moving wealth out the country won't do you much good anyway.

Aren't you the same poster as GreatApe?

and what IHT regime did we have in 1997?

no i am not GreatApe.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Arklight wrote: »

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.
The Dairy Farmer is a business and can rest easy.

So how can you say it not clear and then tell me how the land tax will work? Worse than flimsy but potentially huge.

Ah ok so the dairy farmer who saw light at the end of the tunnel with a reducing corporation tax ... gets nice tax bomb as well. They must be cheering.

kinger101

economic wrote: »

and what IHT regime did we have in 1997?

no i am not GreatApe.

I picked 97 as that was when Labour came in. We had nil rate bands of £215K. No exemptions for residential property. No transfer of allowance to surviving spouse/civil partner.

Arklight

GreatApe wrote: »

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.

Social care is provided for people in their own homes, and can be needed for decades.

It has nothing to do with care homes.

Maybe you'd like to go and catch up on the election news for the last 3 or 4 weeks and come back when you're up to speed?

GreatApe

kinger101 wrote: »

The IHT regime we had in 1997 didn't cause these problems. If you're UK domiciled, moving wealth out the country won't do you much good anyway.

You can go live elsewhere permanently you do not need to be UK domiciled. This could also potentially offer additional benefits like lower taxes for the years in your retirement something that would not interest me but if IHT went through the roof I would move and not only would you lose out on the IHT but also the income taxes and capital gains taxes I would have paid in the UK.

There are other ways people will skip it, eg gifting to their kids sooner avoiding it in their estates or setting up trusts or putting it into a pension (which is outside the estate).

Arklight

economic wrote: »

if you really want this to happen, just watch productivity fall off a cliff (people less likely to work hard to make money as they know itll be taxed anyway) and/or people with wealth move it outside the country so to avoid the taxes (with all the negative effects of that) and at the extreme as GreatApe says move country taking the wealth with them in a better competitive country with less taxes.

do not underestimate the power of human incentives. if they dont like something, they will change and by no means will it be for the good of the country.

you will then be left with a basket case of a country.

inequality is a good thing. equality is bad (because no one is the same and there varying of degrees of intellegence and hard work and luck). but we also prefer less inequality but not at the expense of anyone.

Exactly where are they going to go; because we charge some of the lowest rates of tax in the developed world.

We keep hearing this desperate argument from the wealthy that they will all leave if they are forced to suffer the indignity of a couple of percent on their taxed income, or god forbid their hidden away untaxed income, precisely because they have no intention of just leaving.

You have to tax someone, it may as well be the people with money.

Thrugelmir

economic wrote: »

if you really want this to happen, just watch productivity fall off a cliff .

The UK is already lagging other major economies. Needs to be more focus on improving productivity now. Before it really does have an impact.

economic

kinger101 wrote: »

I picked 97 as that was when Labour came in. We had nil rate bands of £215K. No exemptions for residential property. No transfer of allowance to surviving spouse/civil partner.

215k was a lot back then when london property on average was £100k. stock markets and savings amounts were also a lot lower compared to now.

in comparison now we have 500k london average price vs IHT threshold of 500k per person. yes it can be transffered now and not in 1997 however this can easily be managed by sspltting assets ahead of time and having both people on the property deeds.

in summary it was a lot better back in 1997 in relative terms and that too under a labour government.