The knives are out for Brown...

[Osem]

Didn't Brown & Co announce their very own IHT concessions around the same time as the Tories were planning theirs? Not quite as generous but nevertheless a concession to some relatively well off people....

[Flyboy]

But back to the OP:

Didn't happen, did it?

---------- Post added at 20:48 ---------- Previous post was at 20:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Didn't Brown & Co announce their very own IHT concessions around the same time as the Tories? Not quite as generous but nevertheless....

It was a darned sight fairer. A married couple being able to transfer unused allowances, not such a bad idea really. Not as generous as raising it to two million pounds. I'll bet all those millionaires' children can't wait.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But back to the OP:

Didn't happen, did it?

---------- Post added at 20:48 ---------- Previous post was at 20:47 ----------



It was a darned sight fairer. A married couple being able to transfer unused allowances, not such a bad idea really. Not as generous as raising it to two million pounds. I'll bet all those millionaires' children can't wait.

Nothing new there matey - so much of what Bliar and Brown promised never happened (and vice versa), it's been a long established New Labout trait you see.....

Anyway, while you're on the IHT bandwagon why don't you find out how much IHT those well known socialist benefactors the Millibands paid on their father's estate?

[Flyboy]

I have no idea. I expect it would have been forty per cent on the remainder of the taxable estate, over the nil rate band. But I suspect you have something to contradict that.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I have no idea. I expect it would have been forty per cent on the remainder of the taxable estate, over the nil rate band. But I suspect you have something to contradict that.

Perhaps you should do a Google search and find out.

[Flyboy]

Aah, yes. Did that and they have not saved anything on their father's estate, seeing as it was all left to their mother.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Aah, yes. Did that and they have not saved anything on their father's estate, seeing as it was all left to their mother.

You may wish to search under "miliband deed of variation" - for instance

Where it states

The Sunday Times has learnt that after Ralph Miliband, the Marxist father of David and Ed, died in 1994, he transferred almost all his assets, including homes in London and Oxfordshire, to his wife.
However, after taking professional advice, the family is understood to have posthumously rewritten his will to give 20% of the London home to both David and Ed.
David has declared a “20% share of family home in London” on the MPs’ register of interests since 2002.
This scheme is called a “deed of variation” and was highlighted by the chancellor in opposition as an unacceptable way in which the wealthy avoid paying death duties.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Aah, yes. Did that and they have not saved anything on their father's estate, seeing as it was all left to their mother.

I notice you inadvertently missed out the 'minor detail' Foreverwar linked to. Now I wonder why that'd be?....

I suppose you'll be claiming next that the Millibands don't count as wealthy...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ty-empire.html

Of course it could all be tabloid lies...

[Flyboy]

So, your whole point is that they made a deed of variation? Something that hundreds of thousands of people do? When my father died, we made a deed of variation in my mothers name, she needed the assets more than we did. Please point out where they did something illegal, or any different to anybody else?

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Please point out where they did something illegal, or any different to anybody else?

Why would he want to do that, when that's not the point he was making?

Originally Posted by Flyboy

So, your whole point is that they made a deed of variation? Something that hundreds of thousands of people do? When my father died, we made a deed of variation in my mothers name, she needed the assets more than we did. Please point out where they did something illegal, or any different to anybody else?

Are you honestly saying you can't see the hypocrisy in making claims about the Tories and IHT, when the Miliband brothers (and apparently yourself) indulged in a practice that Gordon Brown called

an unacceptable way in which the wealthy avoid paying death duties.

[Flyboy]

First of all, my father was not exactly wealthy and we did not do it to avoid paying inheritance tax. Secondly, this is all legitimate IHT planning that everyone does and are entitled to do. There is only so far one can go with such planning. Most of it is a deferral exercise anyway, because they will end up inheriting the entire estate and will have to pay the tax in the end. The Tories, however, are attempting to actively help their rich buddies pay even less tax on the estates of their benefactors. The rules that help people mitigate their liability will always be there, in fact, I can quite see that any Tory incumbent will extend those rules to help the wealthy even further, as well as extending the nil rate band.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Okay then, what have Labour being doing for the last ten years that was worse than what the Tories did, between nineteen seventy-nine and nineteen ninety-seven? Remember, of course, that the recession we are in is not solely down to policies followed by this government. In case you missed it, it was a world-wide thing.

While Brown does deny any responsibility, the banks (who arguably did at least trigger the reception) were apparently operating under international rules and procedures apparently drawn up while GB was Chancellor of the Exchequor. Arguably, he would have had some involvement, being responsible for the economy and banking system of a major financial power and all..

[Osem]

Flyboy, you spend much of your time here preaching about those greedy, evil, Tories and accepting no excuses or mitigation whatsoever, yet when it's pointed out to you that those who lead your precious New Labour 'socialist' party are just as adept at feathering their own nests by, whatever means, as the worst fat cat Tories, you enter into a state of total denial.

As I suspect even you well know, my point wasn't about legality, it was about morality and hypocrisy - something which a great many of those at the helm your champagne socialist party evidently know very little about. Of course, at the same time and with their snouts firmly in the trough, they just love to preach ethics, morals, humanitarianism and civic duty to the rest of us....

BTW, I notice that other well known socialist humanitarian Bliar isn't averse to a bit of wealth, property ownership and nest feathering - sounds awfully 'Tory' that doesn't it....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6962649.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ntry-home.html

You may not like the truth Flyboy but New Labour has more than it's fair share of greedy, self serving, morally bankrupt, hyprocrites.

---------- Post added at 14:41 ---------- Previous post was at 14:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart C

While Brown does deny any responsibility, the banks (who arguably did at least trigger the reception) were apparently operating under international rules and procedures apparently drawn up while GB was Chancellor of the Exchequor. Arguably, he would have had some involvement, being responsible for the economy and banking system of a major financial power and all..

Stuart, surely you must know by now that Brown is only ever responsible for things which go right which is why he's spent so long digging his way out of a mssive hole since Bliar stood aside.

Brown's new election slogan ought to be: "Vote New Labour - When the wheels come off we'll blame someone else".