The Chronicles of Rishi

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

So that's the justification to rob from ordinary people who have inherited their parents' homes? The very rich don't notice it (nor do they seem to die).[/COLOR]

It's just as much 'robbing' as any other tax only at the moment fewer people are impacted by it. You could also argue that why should it fall upon me and other working-age people to pay for the social care of people who've accumulated a lot of wealth through a boom in house prices?

But my larger point is that Sunak will spend the next year promising tax breaks that you'll never see or will be reversed after the next election. Either he wins in which case it's done it's job or Labour wins and has to implement unpopular tax rises in their first year.

This country has a large amount of debt, an NHS with huge waiting lists, infrastructure projects that need funding and are on hold, and the whole mess that is social care and pensions which cost more and more each year with the triple lock.

The scope for serious tax cuts is limited. IHT might get away with it because it impacts so few people and fires up their base whereas raising the 20% and 40% tax thresholds with inflation would actually be fairer and impact more people but actually would cost money. So they keep that effective stealth tax rise whilst making a big show of cutting tax for the richest estates.

Sunak/Starmer are lying if they say otherwise.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

"Shysters" and "spivs" should not be implied attributes of honest people who have worked hard to build their assets or who have inherited property passed down from their parents. The £1m threshold has been artificially manipulated by fiscal drag to dip into more pockets than before. The tax is totally immoral and the damn Trots shouldn't be looking over their shoulders at hard working, successful families. Politics of envy leads to violent revolution sometimes.

Wind in the righteous indignation and give your head a wobble, no one said shysters and spivs were the attributes of honest hard working people, what I said is the shysters and spivs love a useful idiot who tries to say their aggressive tax avoidance schemes are like a ordinary plebs ISA and this is similar, the vast, vast majority are completely unaffected by this

Originally Posted by Pierre

It would be nice to see the tax we pay spent a bit better. Regardless of who pays it.

Considering hmrc are saying it isn't in the public interests to go after the fraudsters that made of with billions in the pandemic I can't see that aspiration as achievable, someone will be along in a minute to say that con was no different from claiming allowances on your self assessment form no doubt

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Utter, total rubbish. Ordinary people with assets > £1m are not the greedy bustards that you and The Daddy put forward. The taxation instrument is too blunt to be fair, particularly when the useless government can drag people into the net by fiscal drag.

The millionaires aren't affected by this - just ordinary people.

I never said they were greedy

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

"Shysters" and "spivs" should not be implied attributes of honest people who have worked hard to build their assets or who have inherited property passed down from their parents. The £1m threshold has been artificially manipulated by fiscal drag to dip into more pockets than before. The tax is totally immoral and the damn Trots shouldn't be looking over their shoulders at hard working, successful families. Politics of envy leads to violent revolution sometimes.

I couldn't agree more!

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

So where are you getting a piddling 6/7 billion from ? Borrow more? Cut public services further? Abandon the triple lock?

They've had 13 years to do any of these things, including reforming IHT, why now? Panic stations at 'oh dear we're screwed central' .

You’ve skewed the argument away from the rights and wrongs of IHT. But you’re not totally wrong with your skew. It’s a feeble election ploy and much too late.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

"Shysters" and "spivs" should not be implied attributes of honest people who have worked hard to build their assets or who have inherited property passed down from their parents. The £1m threshold has been artificially manipulated by fiscal drag to dip into more pockets than before. The tax is totally immoral and the damn Trots shouldn't be looking over their shoulders at hard working, successful families. Politics of envy leads to violent revolution sometimes.

Such absurd fulminations.

For a kick off, inheritance tax is in effect levied on those receiving the inheritance, not the one leaving it, because the one leaving it is dead. It can’t affect them in any way. It is a tax on the transfer of wealth that is by its very definition unearned. Absolutely nothing to do with how hard the recipient works themselves. And that is in fact the problem. There are people who are wealthy purely because their parents, grandparents and great grandparents have managed to leave a cascade of wealth flowing down the generations and who therefore have a large number of built-in advantages over those who did not inherit wealth. No society that believes itself to be democratic and meritocratic should leave that totally unchecked. Because yes, when after several generations the inequalities become egregious, that’s when revolutions occur.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You’ve skewed the argument away from the rights and wrongs of IHT. But you’re not totally wrong with your skew. It’s a feeble election ploy and much too late.

If it is an election ploy, its a terrible one. The 3% who might benefit are mostly already 'in the bag'. The other 97% will see it for what other is, the rich looking after themselves at the expenses of other much more needed causes atm.

I suspect they know the election is lost and are feathering their own beds; even they can't be that thick to think this will win an election. Its the no 1 issue for almost nobody.

Its a non issue for me, I would not come anywhere near the threashold.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr K

the rich looking after themselves

Depends If you consider everyone within the M25 that owns their house, “The Rich”.

Anyway Fortunately, for us all and you, we’re all heading for a dementia epidemic and the local authority will take all your assets to pay for your care and your poisoned entitled offspring will get nothing. So inheritance won’t be an issue anyway.

So I don’t see what the issue is.

By shares in care homes.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Anyway Fortunately, for us all and you, we’re all heading for a dementia epidemic and the local authority will take all your assets to pay for your care and your poisoned entitled offspring will get nothing. So inheritance won’t be an issue anyway.

Isn't this fair enough? Unless we introduce a new tax then it's got to be paid for somehow. Either we all pay into a fund, like a pension, we apply a tax on all inheritance or we do what May proposed and your house is used to help pay for the care you received.

The social care problem will be unavoidable eventually, a government is going to have to bite the bullet at some point and address it.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Depends If you consider everyone within the M25 that owns their house, “The Rich”.

Anyway Fortunately, for us all and you, we’re all heading for a dementia epidemic and the local authority will take all your assets to pay for your care and your poisoned entitled offspring will get nothing. So inheritance won’t be an issue anyway.

So I don’t see what the issue is.

By shares in care homes.

Since over 90% of the houses within the M25 are under £1,000,000, probably not "everyone within the M25"…

https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandp...-b1059196.html

I’m always confused why people (not saying you do) who have assets/parents have assets, expect others (the taxpayer/council tax payer) to pay for their later life care - most of my wife’s mum’s money from selling her bungalow went to pay for her couple of years in a Dementia Care Home, and we expect the same for outr house assets.

Obviously, if one of a couple is in a care home, and the other isn’t, it gets a bit more complex.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I’m always confused why people (not saying you do) who have assets/parents have assets, expect others (the taxpayer/council tax payer) to pay for their later life care - most of my wife’s mum’s money from selling her bungalow went to pay for her couple of years in a Dementia Care Home, and we expect the same for outr house assets.

This will be our reality in a few years.

[jfman]

It’s amazing the amount of small state/free market capitalists become lefties on their death beds.

[Sephiroth]

You could divide the nation into two groups:

1/
People who work diligently and build up their assets, including inherited assets/wealth.

2/
People who work diligently with little or no ability to build assets.

What I’m seeing here (Forum) are lefties of various flavours who regard unearned wealth as partial property the state can 40% take and give to group 2.

But say the wealth left behind in a will is all earned on which tax has already been paid? Unfair to tax it again just because it becomes unearned wealth for the next generation.

Lefties basically apply the politics of envy. Until they ‘get the foreman’s job at last’.

There are multiple examples of "tax twice" - for instance, you pay tax on your earnings, but then pay tax again when you buy things (except food and childrens' clothes).

I have "worked diligently", and would be affected by IHT - however, I have no problems paying it, because I am part of society, and I see part of my role in life to support society.

We help our kids & grandkids (because luckily we can) whilst we are alive, but if there is anything left after care home fees for me and SWMBO, I have no issues on it being taxed once it's over the threshold.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You could divide the nation into two groups:

1/
People who work diligently and build up their assets, including inherited assets/wealth.

2/
People who work diligently with little or no ability to build assets.

What I’m seeing here (Forum) are lefties of various flavours who regard unearned wealth as partial property the state can 40% take and give to group 2.

But say the wealth left behind in a will is all earned on which tax has already been paid? Unfair to tax it again just because it becomes unearned wealth for the next generation.

Lefties basically apply the politics of envy. Until they ‘get the foreman’s job at last’.

I've been observing a far more nuanced debate with commentary around funding social care and how much you tax the hard-working entrepreneurs and employees of today and how much you tax those who have the good fortune to inherit substantial sums.

Conclusion seems to be that unless you've millions, a lot of wealth will end up funding care so not a massive issue for many people.