Inheritance tax

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the "vastly wealthy" paying their fair share of tax (start by closing the loopholes which their accountants are so clever at finding).

However, the majority of those who would suffer under this policy are not vastly wealthy. Their only asset will be the home they live in and which they would like to pass on to children and grandchildren. As I don't have children this doesn't affect me but I do feel for friends who can be said to be asset rich cash poor - their house being the only thing they have to leave to their children.

It isn’t “getting back” it is FAIRNESS!! Keep that in mind.

Neither me nor my children have ever been given anything to “help us up the ladder” . I think I am fairly typical of my generation in this area. This ensures that working class people like us stay right where they are . There needs to be some kind redress soon or else these kinds of policies will become very attractive and seen as a way of “getting back” at those with the money .

Everyone is obsessing on £125000!

Obsess on the vastly wealthy instead and consider whether taxing assets is the way to go.

Here in the NE £125k is a lot of money . As I said up thread this could buy you a decent 3 bedroom house in my town. Those who support the current LP (and think that JC and his side kicks are the second coming of Christ) would without doubt agree with this policy .

callistemin No this is what people are muddling, income wealth is not the same as asset wealth. Yes there is an enormous amount of tax evasion/avoidance as far as income is concerned but it doesn’t contribute nearly as much to wealth inequality as asset wealth does. Asset wealth passed on to subsequent generations gives them power and privilege that has not been earned or achieved. The power this is giving these wealthy folkis the worry. And one of the ways in which to consider this is to tax asset in the form of land. How this is to be done is the subject of debate.

Just to add, Whitewave, not everyone can afford to pay their children's way eg university fees etc, towards independence and a 'career', as their income may be only just sufficient, their home their only asset. Therefore some will still be saddled with debt, unable to buy a house unless they one day do get an inheritance, especially in some areas.

Not everyone has a 'career' either - many people have a job - if they are lucky.

Callistemon Totally agree.

Whitewave you are talking about the hugely wealthy paying a fair amount of tax.

McD is talking about £125,000, I understand, which is hardly 'vast wealth'.

If the wealthy who avoid income tax paid their dues when alive we would not need to have this conversation.

I agree with your post to a certain degree Grandad but think that what paddyann says about paying a little more on earned income is a more honest way of tax-raising to provide the services we need as a civilised society.

Whilst I don't disagree with inheritance tax entirely, I think that the present system is fair enough but do not agree with these proposals.

They seem ill-thought out.

gillybob, I get where you are coming from. Three of our AC now run our family business, the intention is to hand it over completely. Looking into the tax situation at the moment, they want to keep it running as they have mortgages and families as do our employees.

I just feel very angry that the "big companies" get away with paying little and in some case no tax, but small to medium sized businesses which are supposedly the backbone of the country seem to be taxed to the max!!!

MaizieD, I can only hope that the legislation that the Conservative Government has just passed to be carbon neutral by 2050, will come good.

Unfortunately I have lost faith in all MPs, none of them will ever be in a position to carry through their promises as there will always be those who oppose just because they can, without thinking through that a policy could/would actually be beneficial to the UK. (Brexit excluded as I am at the point where I really do not care anymore)

I see your point GrannyGravy13 but if special rules were applied , what would be to stop the children from taking their inheritance and selling up anyway ? Also I can’t see the difference between a farm (employing people) or any other business employing people . Everyone seems to think that their case is unique or special when really we should all have to pay our fair share . No special cases.

Neither am I arguing for land to be nationalised

I’m not talking about farmers I’m talking about absentee landholders who aren’t running a business but merely avoiding tax by buying up huge swathes of agricultural land etc. They don’t farm the land they let others do the dirty work.

I could not trust any government not to go down the German road of digging up 500+year old forests to mine brown coal, which is really "dirty and polluting"

Perhaps you should consider voting to put in power one of the parties that is opposed to such behaviour? Rather than for those that are in hock to 'big business' and allow its demands to override the needs of the environment.

Whitewave I know a farmer, not monetary wealthy, but has an arable farm. If his children had to pay IT, a large proportion of acreage would need to be sold. Which equates to a smaller farm providing less jobs (and homes for the farmhands) therefore the government will receive less revenue in the long run.

I am more than happy for our remaining forests to remain in private hands and hope they stay protected. I have no faith in any government ring fencing the UK forests, planning permission should NEVER be granted, Trees are the lungs of the earth.

I could not trust any government not to go down the German road of digging up 500+year old forests to mine brown coal, which is really "dirty and polluting"

But you see these are nothing more than ideas at the moment and 10 bob to a pound the figure if £125000 will not be the final figure.

My argument is that vast inequality needs to be tackled, and land wealth seems a good idea.

Of course I love the idea of leaving my estate to the children, but if you have helped them achieve independence and a career you have frankly done your bit. Your wealth may have to be used to care for you. Which is something else I think needs tackling. Social care has become the whipping post for cuts and the NHS has been left to pick up the tab, which it was never intended to do. We need a social care tax.

WW2 Your posts all relate to the very wealthy, the point I am trying to get across is that having the cut off at £125,000 it will hit those who have managed to buy their own home and are now hoping to make life a little easier for their children and grandchildren. It seems this policy will do nothing to help the working class to improve their lives and would in fact prevent them from doing so.

I think that IT is a pretty unfair method of taxation as it is at present but I am not sure that these suggested changes are any better. As I understand it, my mother, a widow, can leave her allowance and my fathers to her heirs before IT is due, but as a divorcee, I only have my allowance ie half the amount. Presumably that it because my ex is still alive to use his allowance - but his estate will go to his new wife, not our children.

Also, I have three children, so is the proposal £125000 per child, which in my case is higher than the current levels?

Next year there will be another allowance ( up to £75000?) if you own your own house which might improve my tax position.

Although in reality, my mothers money will be used to pay for her care ( she has Alzheimer's) so I doubt there will be much to inherit! I reckon mine will be spent in the same way.

We do need a fairer system, some people do use loopholes to avoid paying these rates of IT although no one will tell me what they are!

But but but the IT issue isn’t so much about paying more tax it’s about redistributing wealth. That’s the issue. Wealth is largely contained in assets particularly land.

Vast holdings of agricultural land held by the highly wealthy let’s them off IT. Vast holdings of forested land held by the hugely wealthy the same.

£2bn a year is avoided by such means. Assets like land cannot be moved offshore, that is why it should be subject to a clever tax that helps in wealth redistribution, then used to construct the type of civilised society that grandad described.

It may mean paying more tax but it sure as hell doesnt mean giving tax breaks to the already wealthy.

I've never had a problem with paying tax am happy to pay the extra penny in the pound and the higher council tax the SNP have levied.Its great value for money.I see new council houses being built all over my area,roads are being improved.nurses,teachers and police have decent rises and loads of other benefits .
Taxes are a necessity BUT I want to leave my GC enough for a house deposit each ,money for my AC to have life a bit easier than the 72 hour weeks we worked when they were small .If my (Holyrood) government wants to raise my tax again I'm fine with that at least its going where it should not in £150.000 expenses that GOVE took last year or to pay old men to sleep in the H of L.

My thoughts exactly, very good points made Grandad very succinct.

Excellent post, Grandad ?. Thank you.

Tax is what we pay for a civilised society, and yet in recent years tax has been portrayed in the right-wing media as "evil" to the welfare of all who reside in this country.

However, we all wish to have an excellent health service, free at the point of delivery.

We all wish to see good care provided for our elderly.

We all wish to see excellent standards of education provided for our young.

We all wish to see our country defended adequately and our streets maintained as safe places for us all to use.

The above are just a few examples of what we expect from those who govern us, and there is much more that could be added to the above list. All that can only come from the taxes we all pay, whether that be directly or indirectly.

Therefore if the above means that on the death of my wife and myself our children receive somewhat less from what we bequeath to them, so be it, as at this point in time there are many in our society in much more in need than them.

We all love our children and grandchildren, but a balance must be struck in terms of what is no more than just beneficial to them, and real need in others.