Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
R K

Tories Would Increase Iht To £1million

Recommended Posts

and raise stamp duty band for FTBs to £250,000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7021357.stm

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne says a Conservative government will increase the threshold for inheritance tax from the current £300,000 to £1m.

He will also scrap stamp duty for first time buyers on homes up to £250,000.

The £3.1bn cost of increasing the inheritance tax threshold and the £400m bill for scrapping stamp duty will be paid for by imposing a £25,000 charge for non-domicile taxpayers

If in doubt, use a tax bribe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and raise stamp duty band for FTBs to £250,000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7021357.stm

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne says a Conservative government will increase the threshold for inheritance tax from the current £300,000 to £1m.

He will also scrap stamp duty for first time buyers on homes up to £250,000.

The £3.1bn cost of increasing the inheritance tax threshold and the £400m bill for scrapping stamp duty will be paid for by imposing a £25,000 charge for non-domicile taxpayers

If in doubt, use a tax bribe.

The best part of this speech was where he fingered the stupidity of building an economy on debt, and the exposed position in which it's left us. A shame that this part won't get reported or analysed; instead we'll be told about the juicy tax changes. Overall a good performance though, I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raising the IHT threshold to £1m just before we go into probable housing downturn is an interesting move. I think he is trying to out manoevre Stalin who could have raised it to say £500k. £1m will take most "middle class" tory voters out of IHT altogether I should imagine.

This £25k levy on non-doms is a gift though. Pay a one-off fee of £25k and we won't bother taxing your off-shore assets. Would have though that was a positive inducement to attract non-doms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A flat £25,000 charge for non-domicile taxpayers seems like of the most unfair and discriminatory taxes the looney tories have come up with in recent times (but so is the current exemption for non-doms, yet two silly tax ideas don't make a good one).

Why not just replace income tax entirely with a flat £25,000 charge for everyone if they're going down that route??? Let's kick those who are not rich in the guts... but our rich mates, well, we don't want to upset them now do we.

Perhaps now, with the wealth gap growing ever wider, may not be the best time to come up with regressive tax policies.

The UK is still a four-tiered society: the rich, the freemen, the serfs and the welfare dependants. Different rules apply to each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The UK is still a four-tiered society: the rich, the freemen, the serfs and the welfare dependants.

Interesting categories.

"Freemen" would be well-paid professionals I suppose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say with tax breaks like these it's becoming increasingly economical to have my parents killed. I don't want to, but this is a financial decision and I shouldn't let emotions influence that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to say with tax breaks like these it's becoming increasingly economical to have my parents killed. I don't want to, but this is a financial decision and I shouldn't let emotions influence that.

Logans run is beginning to make sense to me now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting categories.

"Freemen" would be well-paid professionals I suppose?

I would say that these are just highly paid serfs. Their personal freedom is very limited. In Roman times a slave could be highly paid (eg. most managers/administrators were slaves because a free man would not work for another). They could also buy back their freedom, much like today's professionals when they retire or start their own business.

Hence, as freemen I would categorise those who don't work for someone else and still make a decent living; ie. business or property owners who don't qualify as rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The UK is still a four-tiered society: the rich, the freemen, the serfs and the welfare dependants.
Interesting categories.

"Freemen" would be well-paid professionals I suppose?

My take:

rich = independent means

freemen = no debt but must work for a living

serfs = indebted workers

welfare dependants = claimants

there's some blurring of course, people from all three lower categories could receive tax credits, and even the super-rich are entitled to child benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A flat £25,000 charge for non-domicile taxpayers seems like of the most unfair and discriminatory taxes the looney tories have come up with in recent times (but so is the current exemption for non-doms, yet two silly tax ideas don't make a good one).

Why not just replace income tax entirely with a flat £25,000 charge for everyone if they're going down that route??? Let's kick those who are not rich in the guts... but our rich mates, well, we don't want to upset them now do we.

Perhaps now, with the wealth gap growing ever wider, may not be the best time to come up with regressive tax policies.

The UK is still a four-tiered society: the rich, the freemen, the serfs and the welfare dependants. Different rules apply to each.

Replacing an outrageous tax break with a £25k charge isn't so bad really. After all you would have to earn fairly serious money (£80-85k) to stump up £25k income tax through PAYE, and a very great number of Non-Doms would leave if they tried to do that, leaving HMG with nothing.

One day I wouldn't rule out seeing a 'top whack' for Income Tax beyond which there would be 0% marginal rate on the grounds it would make quite a lot of money bringing tax exiles out of the cold.

As for IHT, the great fear for me was they would abolish it altogether, allowing some the wealthiest estates in the country to escape scot free, many of whom have no doubt indulged in a lifetime of perfectly legal 'professional tax avoidance.' £1m is far too high IMO, and according to the Halifax research, the rump of the tax take is from the £500k - £1m estates. But having said that rising house prices have caught a lot of people in a huge fiscal drag, and there was always a good case for big rise. And George has got to get the Daily Mail readership behind them.

http://www.mortgageintroducer.com/mortgage...ritance_Tax.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest vicmac64
My take:

rich = independent means

freemen = no debt but must work for a living

serfs = indebted workers

welfare dependants = claimants

there's some blurring of course, people from all three lower categories could receive tax credits, and even the super-rich are entitled to child benefit.

your take is right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serfs = indebted workers. My father was.

Freemen = no debt but must work for a living. He later became

Rich = independent means. Is this now on the back of HPI in London

My father was a factory worker prior to retirement. He owns 2 houses 'valued' at 900k+. On this basis, I would be far wealthier voting for David Cameron :unsure::blink::(:rolleyes: .

I have a dilemma. What should I do? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the most astute thing they've done so far to get at Brown - big hand out to middle England while making the non-dom situation more "fair" in that they make a contribution, thereby highlighting GB's problems with being seen a friend of the non-dom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My father was a factory worker prior to retirement. He owns 2 houses 'valued' at 900k+. On this basis, I would be far wealthier voting for David Cameron :unsure::blink::(:rolleyes: .

I have a dilemma. What should I do? :lol:

The fact that you wrote 'dilemma' in quotes tells me you know your dilemma will quite possibly resolve itself without you having to make any tricky moral choices :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serfs = indebted workers. My father was.

Freemen = no debt but must work for a living. He later became

Rich = independent means. Is this now on the back of HPI in London

My father was a factory worker prior to retirement. He owns 2 houses 'valued' at 900k+. On this basis, I would be far wealthier voting for David Cameron :unsure::blink::(:rolleyes: .

I have a dilemma. What should I do? :lol:

You have no dillema, you are or will be the modern version of the landed gentery, in fact a New-Tory. The vast majority will inherit nothing or little and Camerons new ideas as per all tory thinking is set up to benefit those who need no benefit, ie the rich and powerful.

As for what the Tories are planning otherwise, I would suggest look at history, they will target the lowest paid workers and punish them for ever having voted Labour. How about cancelling or curtailing the minimum wage like they did last time (which is already too low to live on unless you are subsidised in some way) How about increasing regressive taxes in order to fund tax cuts for the rich. Or doing away with all workplace rights (they have been studying the new Australian system)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Popalot

In ancient Rome the hardest working, most entrepreneurial guys who rampantly sucked up to their masters or in some way "had something on them" were eventually freed. So the word is freedmen, with a d. ie they were once slaves and now can work for themselves or for a businessman of theor choice.

In other words...nothing has changed. In the western economies freedmen are either self employed people or retired people who have shed the yoke of grovelling to their bosses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Osborne should pop round to Maggie's place and see if she still has the address of her elocution teacher in the old rolodex.

Less of a statesman, more a bee-gee. Still, it is nice to see a 14 year old with an interest in politics though, I take it he is following William Hague's old example in speaking at the conference shortly before taking up shaving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best part of this speech was where he fingered the stupidity of building an economy on debt, and the exposed position in which it's left us. A shame that this part won't get reported or analysed; instead we'll be told about the juicy tax changes. Overall a good performance though, I thought.

You really think so, what they have planned will probably make housing market even worse. They would be better to consider taxing those who make money from rental or development, and using this money to help first time buyers. The problem at the moment is that there is too much land and property in the hands of buy to let and developers, free this and you will get a cheaper market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SNIP

= =

"There are between 150,000 and 200,000 people who live in this country but who do not pay tax on the money they make abroad, he said. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been under pressure from his own party on tax breaks for wealthy "non-domicile" residents"

NON-DOMICILED TAXPAYERS

+ Live in the UK and may even have UK citizenship

+ Have strong allegiance to their country of origin

+ Pay tax only on UK earnings, not on profits from businesses abroad

+ Not the same as non-residents, who have tax-free status if they do not exceed 89 days a year in UK

SNIP

It's even more complicated than that, which probably makes this tax unworkable which in turn will reduce anticipated tax take etc.

There's "non-dom" and "resident not ordinarily resident" the key to which being you have to have the express intention of only staying in the UK for 2-3 years: these people are separate from the typically super-rich, and hence easy to despise, non-residents as DrB says, and it's these fellows who make up the majority of the people this tax appears to be targeting.

This perk is used by non-dom mid level bankers. The upshot is that for non-doms / rnors (eg kiwis and aussies and a few Brits who have severed UK ties) whenever you're overseas on business, the money you earn in the UK is not taxed. So, at the end of the year the tax man asks you on a month by month basis how many days you worked over seas. These earning days are then deducted and your refund is provided.

So: assume that at the start of the year you have to pay 25k for this status. This is on the cusp of what is typically claimed back by the busy traveling I banking VP. Given that a big reason for such people choosing to work in the UK is this tax break, it would not be a surprise if total tax take goes down.

The situation is complex and perhaps I have misunderstood what is being proposed but I'll be jiggered if I'm going to listen to / read his speech.

Edited by aussieboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a staunch Labour supporter I am totally opposed to anything that would allow hard working British Families to pass on any wealth to their children whatsoever. The State is best placed to spend wealth, the people should be happy with what the State gives them and not ever wish to aspire to be independent and therefore a threat to the common cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have no dillema, you are or will be the modern version of the landed gentery, in fact a New-Tory. The vast majority will inherit nothing or little and Camerons new ideas as per all tory thinking is set up to benefit those who need no benefit, ie the rich and powerful.

As for what the Tories are planning otherwise, I would suggest look at history, they will target the lowest paid workers and punish them for ever having voted Labour. How about cancelling or curtailing the minimum wage like they did last time (which is already too low to live on unless you are subsidised in some way) How about increasing regressive taxes in order to fund tax cuts for the rich. Or doing away with all workplace rights (they have been studying the new Australian system)

What about Brown's scrapping of the 10% tax band in the last Budget? The low paid got sacrificed to fund a half baked tax cut for middle income earners. How do you justify that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about Brown's scrapping of the 10% tax band in the last Budget? The low paid got sacrificed to fund a half baked tax cut for middle income earners. How do you justify that?

I dont, just making the point that many people on this site belive that the return of the tories will be the second coming and we will all live happily ever after. I am not impressed with the current government, however I am even less impressed by the tories who were the government who presided over a lot more sh it as far a normal human beings were concerned than the current government has done. Labour has failed by not deleteing much of what the tories did, ie no new social housing, not taxing the rich who hive it all offshore, not dealing with public transport in a big way and a host of other things that have kept the UK as one of the most expensive places on earth for working people to live. The tories will in fact keep their real adgenda secret until they are in power, however anyone who was around last time will know which way they will be leaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 355 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.