Inheritance tax

It was a light hearted comment POGS. So I don’t expect you to take it seriously.

So getting back to the report.

It argues that the U.K. suffers from chronic problems. Growing inequality. Extreme inequality of the distribution of wealth, which is more extreme than inequality of income. Which restricts mobility. This economic power translates into political power which compromises democracy.
Inflating assets cause economic instability, which in turn threatens economic crises.

WW

I don't follow your reasoning.

It's not a case of being ' hung up' on the figure of £125 thousand that is the figure Labour are openly saying they are looking at if you listen to John McDonnell.

The Lifetime Gifts Tax’ (LGT), which Labour have claimed could generate an extra £9.2 billion per year for the government is based on £125 thousand.

Everyone is very hung up on £125000

I think having £125,000 to spare is very wealthy.

I think most of us can grasp the concept of very wealthy Whitewave and £125,000 is not it.

He is saying that gifts over £125,000 per year should be taxable. That seems reasonable to me
If that is the proposal then that seems extremely reasonable - as the limit for gifts is at present £3,000 p.a. (total, not per child) I believe, although you are allowed to give a child more to pay for a wedding.

Please don’t confuse this report with talking about earned income. It is looking at land ownership and tax law, nothing else.

So if you are talking about the very wealthy and their ability to ship vast amounts of their wealth overseas, this isn’t for you.

This is looking at something beneath our feet and the way land and the environment is being exploited by the very wealthy, by the fact that they get huge subsidies as absentee farmers, etc. They also exploit vast tracks of land, killing our precious wildlife to further their profit by providing killing grounds for people to shoot pheasant, deer grouse etc etc.

They invest in and leave empty property simply for profit. The invest in and leave empty, land earmarked for development for profit.
The buy to let market has got out of control with poorly/appallingly maintained property being offered to let on insecure tenure for extortionate amounts of money. Families cannot have any sense of belonging in their community as long as tenures are so short term. This cannot be good for our societal health.
This amongst other areas is what this report is about. It has been offered as a debating tool, around the findings and recommendations. Labour have commissioned it and are now debating whether a) they accept the findings and b) if the findings and recommendations are accepted, how they are to be implemented.

Nothing to panic about - all you grans who are hugely wealthy with offshore companies and vast land ownership as nothing has been decided.

The thing is that the seriously rich will pay nothing as usual. They will create trusts etc with the best legal advice available.

Well the latest polls are showing Labour in 4th place after the Tories, Brexit party and the Lib Dems so I don't think Corbyn has any chance of coming to power any time soon.

We haven’t yet any idea how this is proposed to work inpractice.

It may be contained within the body of the report which I haven’t had time yet to read.

I'd just like to repeat what I posted earlier - this was merely an idea, one of many, put forward as a means of dealing with the inequalities of land ownership. It has not been accepted by the PLP (or Mr Corbyn) but nevertheless the Tory MP Vicky Ford spoke last night on Question Time as if it was now set in stone.

Please do not believe everything you read in the right wing press.

I've only looked at this quickly but my understanding is that he is not proposing to tax everything above £125,000. He is saying that gifts over £125,000 per year should be taxable. That seems reasonable to me, although I'm pretty sure a clever tax barrister will find a way round it, as they do with inheritance tax.

Frankly, I think the current threshold for paying inheritance tax is very generous and my feeling is there should be some sort of sliding scale of payment, from paying nothing on very small estatess to paying more than the current 40% on very wealthy estates. Research has shown that most wealth is acquired through inheritance and so the wealthy continue to acquire more wealth whilst poorer people continue to get poorer. That is not, in my opinion, a good situation.

Most people get very worked up on the subject of inheritance tax but in fact the vast majority of people's estates fall below the threshold for payment of inheritance tax. To be able to pass on something in the order of £1 million pounds in the case of a married couple without paying any inheritance tax seems wrong to me.

I don't think this hair brained idea is workable in practice because who keeps count of the cost of gifts through life; a car, money for uni, wedding cost, deposit for house etc.

I won't be happy if I cannot leave all we have accrued through our lives to our dc and dgc. We have worked hard and paid all taxes due, so they can inherit a house each.

I think I shall start giving them a little bit more now just in case Corbyn gets in, which I doubt, as many Labour voters will hate this policy he is considering. It is a vote loser.

Not sure if I can also leave £125k to each grandchild too and nieces, before they pay 40% tax. I shall just have to spread inheritance around a bit more if that is the case.

I inherited money form my parents and my two aunties who had no children as did my sisters and I chose to invest my share in buy2let houses, whereas one sister chose to have exotic and fabulous holidays every year and most of her inheritance is gone now. Another sister bought a new car and had a conservatory on to her house and a few other goodies. I want to leave mine to my children as I think I will live off of interest from houses and want to leave capital houses to them.

Corbyn is a crackpot in my view and McDonnell is pure Marxist. I have read somewhere if he gets in he has pledged to send money to Venezuela.

Exactly Calli it’s all in the name of “keeping is right down where we belong” . It makes me sick it really does.

I don’t live in Gateshead for the record but I’m not a million miles away. Of course there are no band bloomin’ H properties in my town because there are no houses worth more than £300k they just hammer everyone with nowt into the ground , with band A’s higher than bloomin’ Westminster band H ! Jeez.... no wonder we talk about the North /South divide. Some of the rich southerners haven’t got a clue how we are ripped apart simply for being poor .

All of Westminster's domestic properties are in Band H (valued at over £320,00) properties and paying £1508. I have just been on Rightmove. After excluding the parking spaces, houseboats, hotel rooms and shared ownership properties the cheapest property I could find, a 1 bedroomed flat, was £485,000, which would put it in Band H. Public sector housing accounted for less than 20% of the housing stock

How many Band H properties in Gateshead? Of 32 pages of property advertised for sale in Gateshead, one and a half pages were in Band H. 7 pages were Band D and under. A third of all properties are in the public sector so likely to be in lower tax bands and will not appear on Rightmove.

That is something that seems to be addressed in this report, which must hearten some.

£1,754 pa for Gateshead compared to £434 pa for Westminster for a Band D property ???

Has anybody got an explanation for the off shore property tax and how that will function. Tbh I haven’t had time to read it yet so perhaps I ought to wait until I do probably tomorrow?

Dinamho

gillybob and pogs

' The Report Land for the Many is freely available to download should you have time to read it. Whitewavemark2 is quoting from it above and those extracts seem to make a lot of sense.'
---

I spoke of the ' Land for the Many' Report ' commissioned by Labour so I think you will forgive me for saying that was not the reason for my post or require pointing in it's direction.

I asked you why you posted :-

' There have been some sensible posts on here so why is it that people are still believing the nonsense? Are thy not reading what's been posted? I'm not the only one to have come up with sense.'
---

It's a simple question what is ' the nonsense people are believing ' for you to chastise them?

Hope that explains my gripe

It certainly does, gilly. Mine is up there with the areas of highest tax as well. And no, it most definitely is not fair!

propertydata.co.uk/council-tax

This chart shows exactly what I mean . Notice the areas of the lowest tax and those of the VERY highest (of which I am one) .

I think it varies from council to council. Councils (like Westminster) which have a lot of properties with very high rateable values charge less because so many households are in Band G. The further out from the centre you go, the higher the tax goes because fewer of the houses are in the higher bands..

In some areas of the country rates are high because most of the housing in the council area are in Bands A - D

Oh sorry I missed your question maggiemaybe .

Council tax levels are set by the individual LA they are not the same countrywide. Usually the poorest economic areas pay the highest council tax as there is the most need for their services, with the most wealthy areas paying a lot less. The CT in the part of the NE where I live are some of the highest in the country for the cheapest properties. Hope that explains my gripe. Hetty is right that some of the most wealthy areas pay the very least and the poorest pay the most. hardly fair is it?

Thanks for the information, Hetty. I’d never heard about that.

Maggiemaybe, I've heard that Londoners pay the lowest council tax. I don't know why.