Inheritance tax

I don't completely disagree with Inheritance Tax but I do feel a lifetime limit of £125,000 is low as it will knock back many working class families who worked hard to give their children a better start in life. This will not bother the very rich but could hold back working class kids.

I see it as taking from the hard-working and prudent and giving to the feckless

Well there’s a surprise eazybee .... not !

I applaud your way of thinking M0nica I truly do .

Will the Duke of Westminster be treated the same as the rest of us? Din't he manage to dodge massive IT when he inherited the "estate" so tell me why SHOULD that be allowed when people who have earned far less will be punished for wanting to leave enough for their families.

Yes we should all be treat the same . Let’s not forget many of our stately homes ended up in the NT etc. as they couldn’t pay the IT .

Surely we have only paid tax on the original cost of our home and not the final value which can in some areas can increase 10 fold or more ?

gilly buying a house with money you are earning and paying tax on. The upkeep of the house with money you have earned/are earning and paid tax on

What will the cost to the economy be if our money whether it be in property or savings is taken out of the equation?

Why would the next generation bother to work hard, maybe start a business, buy their own home, if all they are doing is working hard, paying their taxes and paying for the privilege by not being able to keep the reward or look after their families leaving the state to provide for those who genuinely can't.

I have no issue with Inheritance tax as it stands or the threshold lowered, I have no problem in having to pay for my own care should I require it but what is being proposed is not necessarily the right way to raise taxes as at some stage there will be nobody bothering to work to pay it. Nothing to work for let the government pay for my existence.

Possibly that is what is hoped by a Marxist Government who is determined to have the ' big state' where we are all clones who are submissive to our Leaders. Plenty of countries to show us how that system works.

????

You cannot penalise people for buying their own home.

If it increases in value due to the overall economic situation in the country why are they going to be penalised???

Does the LP really want to see an exodus of entrepreneurs and small business owners?

I feel the same way as Monica on this. My children will be affected so that it is certainly not envy of others that makes me think this is a good way to try and reduce the inequality in our society. My husband is of the same mind.

It is not just money that is of value to our children and grandchildren, a secure welfare state and a more equal society is of equal importance for their future.

A very unequal society is a dangerous society, do we really want to end up with the most fortunate having to live in gated communities.

I can't see another way to address this other than taxation and if those of us who are more fortunate have to pay a bit more then so be it. Without the welfare state we would not have been so fortunate.

Grannygravy If it increases in value due to the overall economic situation in the country why are they going to be penalised???

But why should they not pay part of these unearned and unexpected gains in tax to the government?

POGS Why would the next generation bother to work hard, maybe start a business, buy their own home, if all they are doing is working hard, paying their taxes and paying for the privilege by not being able to keep the reward or look after their families leaving the state to provide for those who genuinely can't. It is what millions of people who cannot afford houses do by perforce. It doesn't stop them working hard, starting businesses etc. Have you never read any of gillybob's posts.

Many of us had parents who have died in the last 60 years who as a result of buying houses had goodly sums to leave to their descendants. I have yet to hear that any of those were put off starting businesses or providing for their families

Labour are not suggesting taking away every penny a family has accumulated by the time they die, just a small part of it. My children and grandchildren will still inherit more than they would had we been less fortunate in jobs and inheritance.

Tax it when it is earned then tax it while it's invested then tax it again when you're dead? Why would anyone bother to strive to improve their situation?

Monica I am sorry but I would totally begrudge paying IT on £125,000 and over.

We pay all our taxes (some we now have to pay upfront, which those on paye do not).

Labour are going after “easy targets”, why not go after the “big boys” Google, Amazon to name just 2!!

We have not spent the last 40yrs building up a business and saving whenever there was anything spare so that the LP can balance its books.

Might sound harsh, but that is how I feel.

Monica

Yes I have read Gillybob posts.

Monica

Not only on this thread.

What Labour is addressing is the staggering wealth inequality in the UK.

So we know that the most wealthy receive the biggest %of breaks, and what I think needs looking at is the fairness of the tax system. Wealth inequality is undoubtedly underpinned by the inheritance tax relief, and it seems to be grossly unjustified to continue to operate the system as it is where the most wealthy can save millions on the assets left by a dead person. Using the tax loopholes by these extraordinarily wealthy individuals is costing the tax payer £2bn a year.

The OECD, recognising this problem, consider tackling inheritance tax the best way to deal with this wealth inequality, which is of course different from and far worse than income inequality. It recognises the fact that great wealth bring with it great power and entrenched inequality.
In the absence of taxation, this wealth will accumulate and bring with even greater power. Power which many now see as part of the elite who are being challenged, particularly by the populist parties.

Now, before everyone starts jumping up and down and screaming Marxists and other such tripe, bear in mind that this is at the moment ideas only, as a result of a report which looked at land ownership and its many conclusions and re commendations.

Nothing has yet been decided.

Whitewavemark2, it is only one of the many advisory papers I know,

£125,000 would hit an awful lot of LP voters. It is not in the 21st Century a huge amount of money to be distributed amongst AC and GC.

Go after the multi-millionaires!!!

Well, millions of people do including millions who strive to improve their situation and at the end of the day have nothing to leave. Nevertheless they still struggle and many make an improvement, but not one that leaves them with any cash at the end of their lives.

Taxes are the price you pay for succeeding in improving your situation and your financial position.

Look around you. There are roads and schools and hospitals and civil order and rubbish collection, The energy infrastructure was built by state-owned companies. Much of this infrastructure is in poor order because governments have put personal greed over public interest and protection of the weak and failing comes second to letting the majority of the population pay less tax to win their votes.

If we want Scandinavian quality public services, and most do, we cannot get them if we have American tax rates. I am happy to pay taxes on my income, my investments and estate at death. I am fortunate to be in a position to do so.

GranyGravy As I understand it they are not going to confiscate all money above £125,000 per recipient, just tax it.

We will still leave much of our estate to our children, it is just that more inheritance tax will be paid on it than at present.

I really cannot see what all the fuss is about.

Personal Taxes

Tax and NI on income

VAT on most purchases

Taxed on savings (interest earned over £1,000)

Council Tax

Stamp Duty when moving house which is just tax by another name.

Save for your own pension out of salary which has already been taxed, then when you actually draw your pension hey ho it is taxed!!!

Just because successive governments have been unable to balance their books I do not see why my Estate and heirs should give them any more than the absolute minimum.

gg13 the vastly land wealthy are a group who labour see need addressing. The OECD, Pickerty and a report produced by Monbiot identifies this group. This huge and increasing wealth inequality is undoubtedly causing a societal imbalance that is neither fair nor healthy, and will lead in the long run to extreme populist governments as we are already seeing both here in Europe and the USA

I too would completely begrudge having to pay IT on anything over £125,000, whilst it is a sizeable amount of money and I don't want to sound flippant, it doesn't go far in the south east. Where I live a one bedroomed flat costs in the region of £330,000. We've helped our children in several ways, paid for accommodation when one was at university so he came out with less of a student loan, given money to help with a deposit for the government's "Help to Buy" Bailed the other one out on numerous occasions when he became a young, and financially unprepared father with his ex partner, stumping up numerous deposits for flats and help with all manner of things pertaining to our grandchildren, even helping with debts etc. I think the present generation have an uphill struggle in some ways, that's not to say I wouldn't like more help to be provided for those who aren't fortunate enough to access assistance from family. Property prices are very high in our neck of the woods and it's not always easy to just up sticks and go and live in another part of the country when work and family are in this area. Getting on the housing ladder these days usually involves buying 40 or 50 miles out from London and the commute in will then cost something in region of over £4,000 per annum. I don't remember it being quite as hard when I was a 20 something buying my first home, we, my ex and I, were still able to buy fairly close to the capital say 10 or 12 miles out.

My late father-in-law built up a business, worked his backside off 6 days a week, paid the top rate of tax and then when his estate was wound up after his death, his children had a quarter of a million pound IT bill, wasn't it enough that he paid at the top rate during his working life, a double whammy imo. I know we are both lucky to have inherited from our respective parents, mine weren't anything like as well off as my husband's but they did leave money from property. I regard myself as a custodian of a fair portion of that money to pass on in dribs and drabs to my children provided it's not wasted on fripperies, but to try and secure their future and their childrens. God forbid if Corbyn and his mates were running the country we might as well spend the lot on ourselves. Of course the very rich will find loopholes to avoid paying it.

Salary inequality is very different to wealth inequality.

Whitewavemark2 I agree with your post but pitching it to start at £125,000 hits the man in the street who has lived in the same house for 20 plus years. Not the so called “land rich”

I can't understand how on earth they are going to calculate money given to family during our lifetime - I have no idea myself how much they have been given other than an initial house deposit to my eldest son 28 years ago which will be noted somewhere. What happens to money inherited via grandparents - are they including this as well?!!! My parents worked all their lives and left both GC some money in their wills. One GC has emigrated - good luck on trying to recoup that tax!

We have paid tax on wages, business tax, VAT, stamp duty on house purchases and taxed on pension income. If there is anything left at the end of the day when we have paid for care (which is highly probable) why should they be charged tax on our deaths?!

Nothing is decided yet. I suspect that they have put this ideas out there to gauge reaction.