Autumn Statement Predictions?

MattMattMattUK

Grumpy_chap said:

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

I think they will increase the IHT threshold to £1m 

That might grab headlines as a simplification but, for many people (couples) the IHT threshold is effectively £1m now in any case.
£325k each = £650k couple standard IHT threshold
£500k each = £1m couple IHT threshold if passing on the family home to children

Unless the comment was meant to be read as a threshold £1m each, regardless of whether that includes property and regardless of whether the beneficiaries are children of the deceased. 
That would be a big change the in the threshold.  I suspect it would have a small impact on the total tax raised.

I strongly suspect it will not be a change in the threshold. Any change in IHT will be designed to help high net worth Conservative supporters and voters, raising the IHT threshold makes little difference when one is worth £10million or more, however lowering the IHT rate from 40% to 20%, 10% or abolishing it entirely would be the way to go if the aim were to sure up that component of their vote. 

IHT is consistently voted the most hated/least liked tax in the UK, 70-85% of people think it should be abolished entirely depending on when asked and around 90% think that the 40% rate is too high. It becomes more acceptable if the rate is around 10%, but even then more than two thirds of people think it should be abolished as they regard it as immoral that money which has already been taxed, or from assets which were paid for from taxed income should then be taxed again just because someone died. Personally I agree that IHT should be abolished in it's entirety, as should stamp duty, both are economically poor taxes. I would also reform council tax, a flat rate per dwelling and a per occupant charge, I would also raise VAT to 25%, as it only applies to non-essentials it largely falls on higher earners and it would help nicely with bringing the deficit down, as well as having an inflation dampening effect. 

Grumpy_chap

MattMattMattUK said:

IHT is consistently voted the most hated/least liked tax in the UK, 70-85% of people think it should be abolished entirely 

Which is really rather odd, given that "less than 4% of estates paid inheritance tax in 2020–21"
https://ifs.org.uk/news/wealthiest-1-would-get-half-benefit-scrapping-inheritance-tax-average-tax-cut-ps1-million

I also find it odd that parents who, for whatever reasons, decided not to gift and support their next generation while they were alive and the next generation may well have really needed the money, suddenly get all up-tight at the thought that their assets won't be able to be passed to their next generation at death and by which time the next generation may well not really need the money.

MattMattMattUK said:

Any change will be designed to help Conservative voters, to shore up that component of their vote. 

I suspect you are correct. 
That type of knee-jerk response, which seems to have become the norm of late, is the surest way to lose a GE.  
Just ask Jeremy Corbyn.

badmemory

Personally I am happy to pay tax, although I am not sure happy is the right word, maybe grateful to have enough income to need to pay tax, but like most would rather not!  I would like to see the threshhold for PAYING NI raised, so that credits are still earned by the lower earners without any change there but just raising the level at which it is actually deducted.  This won't affect me as I am way too old.

As for inheritance tax.  Well a lot of people will like that even though if they actually looked into it they (well their estate anyway) would probably not have to pay any.  But people think they are due to pay more than they are.

Silvertabby

Grumpy_chap said:

MattMattMattUK said:

IHT is consistently voted the most hated/least liked tax in the UK, 70-85% of people think it should be abolished entirely 

Which is really rather odd, given that "less than 4% of estates paid inheritance tax in 2020–21"
https://ifs.org.uk/news/wealthiest-1-would-get-half-benefit-scrapping-inheritance-tax-average-tax-cut-ps1-million

I also find it odd that parents who, for whatever reasons, decided not to gift and support their next generation while they were alive and the next generation may well have really needed the money, suddenly get all up-tight at the thought that their assets won't be able to be passed to their next generation at death and by which time the next generation may well not really need the money.

MattMattMattUK said:

Any change will be designed to help Conservative voters, to shore up that component of their vote. 

I suspect you are correct. 
That type of knee-jerk response, which seems to have become the norm of late, is the surest way to lose a GE.  
Just ask Jeremy Corbyn.

Before the last election there was a lot of hoo-ha from the waspi women and their supporters claiming that they would only vote for the party that promised to pay the waspis the compensation they wanted.  Jeremy Corbyn promised to pay them £Ks of pounds each once he was Prime Minister.  Remind me again who won the last election by a landslide......

MattMattMattUK

Grumpy_chap said:

MattMattMattUK said:

IHT is consistently voted the most hated/least liked tax in the UK, 70-85% of people think it should be abolished entirely 

Which is really rather odd, given that "less than 4% of estates paid inheritance tax in 2020–21"
https://ifs.org.uk/news/wealthiest-1-would-get-half-benefit-scrapping-inheritance-tax-average-tax-cut-ps1-million

I think that many people perhaps hope that they will be able to leave larger sums to their children and most people still think that IHT is inherently unfair even when it is pointed out that they/their parents would not be paying it. 

Grumpy_chap said:

I also find it odd that parents who, for whatever reasons, decided not to gift and support their next generation while they were alive and the next generation may well have really needed the money, suddenly get all up-tight at the thought that their assets won't be able to be passed to their next generation at death and by which time the next generation may well not really need the money.

I think that many do, but they also need to keep reserves themselves for expenses later in life as we cannot know when we are going to die, they may also have most of their money tied up in their property. With larger estates it can also be businesses etc. and not everyone waits until they are 80+ before they die.

Grumpy_chap said:

I suspect you are correct. 
That type of knee-jerk response, which seems to have become the norm of late, is the surest way to lose a GE.  
Just ask Jeremy Corbyn.

The Conservatives are generally pretty good at picking their electoral bribes, far better than Labour has even been and Corbyn was pretty much the worst option on the table as a potential PM the UK has ever had, I cannot think of any PM or leader of the opposition for the last 100 years that would have been worse and considering even recently we have had Johnson and Truss that shows just how bad he was. 

Pat38493

MattMattMattUK said:

I think that many people perhaps hope that they will be able to leave larger sums to their children and most people still think that IHT is inherently unfair even when it is pointed out that they/their parents would not be paying it. 

The Conservatives are generally pretty good at picking their electoral bribes, far better than Labour has even been and Corbyn was pretty much the worst option on the table as a potential PM the UK has ever had, I cannot think of any PM or leader of the opposition for the last 100 years that would have been worse and considering even recently we have had Johnson and Truss that shows just how bad he was. 

Which highlights again that democracy is the least worst form of government in a sense.  

The people who are against IHT even though they won't pay any, should maybe be made aware of the reams of research and evidence showing that, rather than IHT penalizing them when they "inevitably" become rich enough to pay it, IHT is actually a very progressive tax as it puts a brake on the ability of rich parents to make sure their children do better than equally capable children of people who don't have any money to spare.  This is considered by experts to be one of the biggest drivers of inequality and the preservation of what some would call the class system.  

Also I'm not sure that I judge the quality of past governments or ministers based on their ability to bribe the electorate to get votes at election time - the ability to trick the electorate into voting for you at an election is not the same as truly make a positive difference to a country.

MK62

MattMattMattUK said:

Grumpy_chap said:

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

I think they will increase the IHT threshold to £1m 

That might grab headlines as a simplification but, for many people (couples) the IHT threshold is effectively £1m now in any case.
£325k each = £650k couple standard IHT threshold
£500k each = £1m couple IHT threshold if passing on the family home to children

Unless the comment was meant to be read as a threshold £1m each, regardless of whether that includes property and regardless of whether the beneficiaries are children of the deceased. 
That would be a big change the in the threshold.  I suspect it would have a small impact on the total tax raised.

I strongly suspect it will not be a change in the threshold. Any change in IHT will be designed to help high net worth Conservative supporters and voters, raising the IHT threshold makes little difference when one is worth £10million or more, however lowering the IHT rate from 40% to 20%, 10% or abolishing it entirely would be the way to go if the aim were to sure up that component of their vote. 

IHT is consistently voted the most hated/least liked tax in the UK, 70-85% of people think it should be abolished entirely depending on when asked and around 90% think that the 40% rate is too high. It becomes more acceptable if the rate is around 10%, but even then more than two thirds of people think it should be abolished as they regard it as immoral that money which has already been taxed, or from assets which were paid for from taxed income should then be taxed again just because someone died. Personally I agree that IHT should be abolished in it's entirety, as should stamp duty, both are economically poor taxes. I would also reform council tax, a flat rate per dwelling and a per occupant charge, I would also raise VAT to 25%, as it only applies to non-essentials it largely falls on higher earners and it would help nicely with bringing the deficit down, as well as having an inflation dampening effect. 

I suspect if you asked the general public if they'd rather see IHT abolished, or a rise in their currently frozen Personal Allowance, the majority would choose the latter, even if they don't particularly like IHT in principle.
As for reforming council tax, they already tried to base it on a per occupant basis.......the poll tax.... it wasn't particularly popular to say the least, and raising VAT to 25% at this time would decimate the retail and hospitality industries at a time when they're already struggling.......

If the chancellor has any wiggle room, raising the Personal Allowance should be the first priority, followed by shifting the 40% tax threshold upwards........fiddling with IHT should wait until we are no longer in the middle of a cost of living crisis.......it will do nothing at all to help people struggling at the moment. 

MattMattMattUK

Pat38493 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

I think that many people perhaps hope that they will be able to leave larger sums to their children and most people still think that IHT is inherently unfair even when it is pointed out that they/their parents would not be paying it. 

The Conservatives are generally pretty good at picking their electoral bribes, far better than Labour has even been and Corbyn was pretty much the worst option on the table as a potential PM the UK has ever had, I cannot think of any PM or leader of the opposition for the last 100 years that would have been worse and considering even recently we have had Johnson and Truss that shows just how bad he was. 

Which highlights again that democracy is the least worst form of government in a sense.  

To a point, but then democracy also made it possible for a populist like Johnson who was incredibly bad for the country to gain power, in an ideal situation politics would not become polarised and populist and someone like Johnson (or Truss, or Corbyn) would not get anywhere near parliament, but because of tribal political voting people will vote for those people and they get put in safe seats. 

Pat38493 said:

The people who are against IHT even though they won't pay any, should maybe be made aware of the reams of research and evidence showing that, rather than IHT penalizing them when they "inevitably" become rich enough to pay it, IHT is actually a very progressive tax as it puts a brake on the ability of rich parents to make sure their children do better than equally capable children of people who don't have any money to spare.  This is considered by experts to be one of the biggest drivers of inequality and the preservation of what some would call the class system.  

IHT might be "progressive", but that does not mean that it is good, fair or moral. I think I am probably unlikely to pay IHT if the bands stay similar to where they are now but rise with inflation, I still disagree with it in principal. 

Pat38493 said: 

Also I'm not sure that I judge the quality of past governments or ministers based on their ability to bribe the electorate to get votes at election time - the ability to trick the electorate into voting for you at an election is not the same as truly make a positive difference to a country.

I was not presenting it as a measure of "good", but that the Conservatives are generally more competent when it comes to electoral bribes. They target those who will vote for them and most importantly turn up and cast their vote. The problem the UK has is that generally the electorate are very selfish, they vote for tax rises and/or benefits cuts for other people, and tax cuts and/or benefits rises for themselves, rather than recognising the gain to society (ourselves included) when we all pay more tax. Even the narrative now that the UK has a high tax burden, all the major parties subscribe to it, yet by international standards our tax burden is low, especially for low and middle earners. 

2nd_time_buyer

MattMattMattUK said:

The Conservatives are generally pretty good at picking their electoral bribes, far better than Labour has even been and Corbyn was pretty much the worst option on the table as a potential PM the UK has ever had, I cannot think of any PM or leader of the opposition for the last 100 years that would have been worse and considering even recently we have had Johnson and Truss that shows just how bad he was. 

I am not necessarily disagreeing but I think there is an element of history being written by the victors. He has been beaten by both the conservatives and the right/center of the labor party and it seems to play into everyone's hands to pile into him. 

MattMattMattUK

MK62 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Grumpy_chap said:

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

I think they will increase the IHT threshold to £1m 

That might grab headlines as a simplification but, for many people (couples) the IHT threshold is effectively £1m now in any case.
£325k each = £650k couple standard IHT threshold
£500k each = £1m couple IHT threshold if passing on the family home to children

Unless the comment was meant to be read as a threshold £1m each, regardless of whether that includes property and regardless of whether the beneficiaries are children of the deceased. 
That would be a big change the in the threshold.  I suspect it would have a small impact on the total tax raised.

I strongly suspect it will not be a change in the threshold. Any change in IHT will be designed to help high net worth Conservative supporters and voters, raising the IHT threshold makes little difference when one is worth £10million or more, however lowering the IHT rate from 40% to 20%, 10% or abolishing it entirely would be the way to go if the aim were to sure up that component of their vote. 

IHT is consistently voted the most hated/least liked tax in the UK, 70-85% of people think it should be abolished entirely depending on when asked and around 90% think that the 40% rate is too high. It becomes more acceptable if the rate is around 10%, but even then more than two thirds of people think it should be abolished as they regard it as immoral that money which has already been taxed, or from assets which were paid for from taxed income should then be taxed again just because someone died. Personally I agree that IHT should be abolished in it's entirety, as should stamp duty, both are economically poor taxes. I would also reform council tax, a flat rate per dwelling and a per occupant charge, I would also raise VAT to 25%, as it only applies to non-essentials it largely falls on higher earners and it would help nicely with bringing the deficit down, as well as having an inflation dampening effect. 

I suspect if you asked the general public if they'd rather see IHT abolished, or a rise in their currently frozen Personal Allowance, the majority would choose the latter, even if they don't particularly like IHT in principle.

They probably would, because the electorate love a bribe.

MK62 said:

As for reforming council tax, they already tried to base it on a per occupant basis.......the poll tax.... it wasn't particularly popular to say the least,

They did yes, the Community Charge (Poll Tax) was a far more sensible scheme than either the old rates system or the current Council Tax system, but people do not like sensible.

MK62 said:
and raising VAT to 25% at this time would decimate the retail and hospitality industries at a time when they're already struggling.......

It likely would not, it would be a relatively small rise and most retail is already dying anyway and will die regardless of what happens to VAT. With regard to hospitality a 5% rise might be a bigger impact on them, however I also think business rates need reform and a huge reduction and that would be more beneficial, that or I would potentially suggest a reduced rate of VAT for hospitality. 

MK62 said:

If the chancellor has any wiggle room, raising the Personal Allowance should be the first priority, followed by shifting the 40% tax threshold upwards........fiddling with IHT should wait until we are no longer in the middle of a cost of living crisis.......it will do nothing at all to help people struggling at the moment. 

Raising the personal allowance is unlikely to be his priority, they know the next election is lost, so better to feather their own nest, hence changing IHT. Additionally he has said that he will not make any inflationary tax changes and raising the personal allowance would be inflationary, so a very bad change to make at the moment. 

Personally I would not spend any of the £40 billion headroom, it would be used to cut the deficit, not further increase it.