"Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me."

Everyone never has had the same start in life and never will growstuff, whether that’s down to their parents’ financial position, their parents’ ability to care for them or their own health issues.

Dinahmo

Doodledog If you look at a pie chart of benefits, the state pension is included and it is the largest wedge. It should not be because the vast majority of pensioners have themselves contributed through their earnings to the state pension. (I am aware that some haven't but again, that's another story)

The reason for including pensions is that it adds power to the govt's elbow, whenever they reduce/change the other benefits paid, to imply that people who receive benefits are scroungers etc etc.

I agree. I included it as a benefit (with the caveat that I wouldn't usually) as it is one of the things that I feel is most unfair to single people. Most single people will have to work, and are forced to subsidise the pensions of those in couples who only pay one set of contributions between them.

It's like those people who pay for one round in the pub as a couple, but expect single people to pay for both of them when it's their shout.

GrannyGravy13

DaisyAnne I am not protecting this or any Government, not sure where you get that idea?

Pointing out the blatantly obvious that no Government has the stomach to make any significant changes in the UK’s tax system, is not defending them.

How about going after the unscrupulous employers who pay their staff peanuts, and then the Government ^tops up their wages with UC.

I am all for a compulsory living wage and I fully understand that it would in all probability lead to higher prices, which leads back to folks not being able to afford all they would like…

Vicious circle!

Not so sure it would be a vicious circle because there would be some rebalancing of the books. If employers were forced to pay a living wage, there would be little or no need for Universal Credit, which costs the taxpayer a fortune.

growstuff

Germanshepherdsmum

Are you seriously suggesting that a parent whose child cares for them should pay them a wage growstuff? A lot of people have little income and all their money is tied up in their home which you would take away when they die. Only someone who has inherited nothing, has nothing to leave and is very bitter about their lot in life could have views like yours. Fortunately no political party seriously wanting a chance of election would be daft enough to base their manifesto on views like yours.

Yes. How many children care for their parents for 50 years? I'm seriously suggesting that all carers should be paid a living wage. If the employer (parent) can't pay, the state could intervene.

And how do you propose to tackle the fact that if residential care in later life is needed, any property has to be sold to pay for it ? Doesn’t sit well with the system you propose.

DaisyAnne I am not protecting this or any Government, not sure where you get that idea?

Pointing out the blatantly obvious that no Government has the stomach to make any significant changes in the UK’s tax system, is not defending them.

How about going after the unscrupulous employers who pay their staff peanuts, and then the Government ^tops up their wages with UC.

I am all for a compulsory living wage and I fully understand that it would in all probability lead to higher prices, which leads back to folks not being able to afford all they would like…

Vicious circle!

Child benefit for example combines couples income and caps for means testing at £60,000, but doesn’t differentiate when dealing with single parents - so effectively the cap is £30,000 per parent when treated as a couple.

Yes, and the couple are paying two lots of tax, NI and commuting costs on top of the childcare that the single earner of £60,000 doesn't have to pay (assuming that s/he is part of a couple with children). The family with a £60k single earner pays in less than half of the dual-earner family on £30k each, but takes out twice as much.

It's worse again (fairness-wise) when the single-earner family earns just under the threshold to claim money for things like student grants, but the dual income family earn (between them) just over. Again, two lots of effort, two lots of tax/NI plus childcare, but the single earner still comes out better off.

GrannyGravy13

Good posts Germanshepherdsmum and Doodledog ?????

Can't you just be honest and say "I agree" GrannyGravy. I what why are they "Good posts"?

Growstuff I agree with you about taxing earned and unearned income at the same rates, in the hands of the recipient. I disagree about taxing inherited wealth at 100% but think that the allowances and rates should not be increased/decreased (as applicable).

Germanshepherdsmum

Are you seriously suggesting that a parent whose child cares for them should pay them a wage growstuff? A lot of people have little income and all their money is tied up in their home which you would take away when they die. Only someone who has inherited nothing, has nothing to leave and is very bitter about their lot in life could have views like yours. Fortunately no political party seriously wanting a chance of election would be daft enough to base their manifesto on views like yours.

Yes. How many children care for their parents for 50 years? I'm seriously suggesting that all carers should be paid a living wage. If the employer (parent) can't pay, the state could intervene.

Pammie1

Germanshepherdsmum

Nobody who has children and something to leave them would support 100% IHT growstuff. There’s nothing immoral in having earned your money by legal means, paid your taxes and wanting to leave something for your children and maybe charity. Charities rely heavily on legacies so 100% IHT (or anything approaching that) would wipe them out. The Treasury already gets a hefty chunk of money from the estates of deceased taxpayers. Quite enough IMO.

I agree. Can’t see any government wanting 100% IHT either, if they have to apply it to themselves.

Of course they wouldn't! But how else can all people have the same start in life? The moment babies are born, inequality exists.

GrannyGravy13

DaisyAnne

I couldn’t give a monkeys cuss what the super rich do with theirs, as long as it is not illegal.

But on this thread that is not the question you are being asked. Are you aiming to be a politician GG13?

No the question being posed appears to be how can we punish those who have made more money than they need.

It is not illegal to make money, it is not illegal to be rich.

As long as all taxes are paid to the appropriate authorities depending where one lives, where ones money is made and where one chooses to invest/keep their money it really is nobody else’s business.

I will repeat no Government has done enough regarding tax loopholes they are the ones at fault, every MP / Lord in Westminster, and the devolved Nations.

So, I say "no it is not illegal" and you talk about it as if I have said the opposite.

I talk about the different standards government applies to the rich and poor and you talk about it as if I am criticising the rich rather than the government.

I do get that you are trying to deflect but I'll keep asking. How can you justify the different standards this government uses for the rich and the poor? You're the one who keeps protecting them so you surely must have found a way to at least justify it to yourself.

Doodledog If you look at a pie chart of benefits, the state pension is included and it is the largest wedge. It should not be because the vast majority of pensioners have themselves contributed through their earnings to the state pension. (I am aware that some haven't but again, that's another story)

The reason for including pensions is that it adds power to the govt's elbow, whenever they reduce/change the other benefits paid, to imply that people who receive benefits are scroungers etc etc.

This

Imran Mahmood - barrister

Even if you have £460m you only have one stomach. You can only eat one meal at a time. You can only wear one suit. Drive one car. And live in one house at a time. So pay the tax. Let someone else eat a meal.

Germanshepherdsmum

Nobody who has children and something to leave them would support 100% IHT growstuff. There’s nothing immoral in having earned your money by legal means, paid your taxes and wanting to leave something for your children and maybe charity. Charities rely heavily on legacies so 100% IHT (or anything approaching that) would wipe them out. The Treasury already gets a hefty chunk of money from the estates of deceased taxpayers. Quite enough IMO.

I agree. Can’t see any government wanting 100% IHT either, if they have to apply it to themselves.

Good posts Germanshepherdsmum and Doodledog ?????

Are you seriously suggesting that a parent whose child cares for them should pay them a wage growstuff? A lot of people have little income and all their money is tied up in their home which you would take away when they die. Only someone who has inherited nothing, has nothing to leave and is very bitter about their lot in life could have views like yours. Fortunately no political party seriously wanting a chance of election would be daft enough to base their manifesto on views like yours.

25Avalon

A billionaire as a chancellor might not be that bad as it shows he know how to accumulate wealth and look after it. The draw back is does he have the empathy to distribute it across society? I am also a little confused about his green card given to him when he lived in the States on the understanding he would permanently reside there.

But isnt it his wife’s money ? And if we’re talking generally, inherited wealth doesn’t demonstrate any skill at all, beyond sitting back and waiting for it to come your way. And since when have the Tories been about distribution of wealth ?

We definitely need to change the law to stop very rich accumulators getting absurdly rich.
I dislike labels but I believe in social justice and fairness.

A person investing £100k (from inheritance or a successful business) can hope to accumulate without doing a day's work until they double their money..
A person on the lower end of the income scale, gets in debt by £100 and soon discovers they have to pay interest on their debt and it mounts up and their debt is harder to repay.

I realise this is simplistic but sometimes we need to see things in simple terms.
From the Bible for those who care:

Matthew 25:29, : For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.

So, some people have said that money is a 'tool'.

What is the purpose of a tool that it not being used?

I think that the wealthy are money wasters. They have a tool that could do so much for others and they leave it lying idle, it's only function being to accumulate more wasted money.

What is more, this money that they make so 'legally' is money that is put into a national economy by government for the nation. It's 'public' money. It can be used for so many purposes to improve the lives and wellbeing of everyone in the nation, but the wealthy continually suck out as much of it as they can and put it where it does absolutely nothing good at all... The same applies to global corporations as well...

There was a time when the husband completed one tax return on behalf of himself and his wife and he was entitled to a Married Man's allowance.

Joint taxation was scrapped in 1989/90 when the MM's allowance was £4375 and the Single Person's was £2785. In 1990/91 the MM's allowance was reduced to £1720 at which level it stayed for a number of years. The MM's allowance was finally scrapped om 2000/01.

As you know everyone is entitled to a Personal Allowance and should one partner's income be below PA they are entitled to claim the Marriage Allowance of £1260 (wef 06/04/2021). This also applies to civil partnerships.

I actually remember suggesting to clients that marriage might reduce their combined incomes. Another reason being the changes to tax relief on mortgage interest but that's another story.

growstuff

How about handing it down to other people's children and grandchildren too? In a generation or so, people don't care that much about their ancestors' lives, but they still have the money they passed on, which gives some an unfair advantage.

It is totally unrealistic and very wrong to dictate what others can do with their money and or property.

As long as the money was earned legally, all taxes due are paid at the appropriate rate and time (including the current rate of inheritance tax paid by their beneficiaries on their death) it is theirs to do with as they wish, to suggest otherwise stinks of the ugliness of envy.

How many people who need long-term care could possibly afford to pay a realistic wage?

growstuff

Jaxjacky

So growstuff someone who has dedicated a large portion of their life caring for, let’s say a parent. They’ve had no chance to buy their own property or build any semblance of a career, maybe claimed carers allowance. They inherit a property, on the death of their relative, perhaps some money, you’d tax it all and take it away?

In that situation, the parent could/should have made provision for the carer during their lifetimes - maybe by paying a realistic wage.

I care for my 91 year old mum in my own home. She’s on basic state pension and couldn’t pay me a realistic wage because she doesn’t get one herself. You’re suggesting changing an unfair system to one that’s even more unfair.

People aren't going to start on the same starting block regardless of inheritance. Unless they are tragically orphaned as a child most people are likely to be in middle age when their parents die, by which time for those who've had them, the advantages of a good education, family connections and the security of being able to take career risks will have paid off if they've been there, and for those who haven't the lack will be equally apparent.

Also, removing inheritance will remove incentive for a lot of people to make an effort. Even at relatively low levels of wealth, the desire to leave something behind for children is a powerful driver.

Nobody who has children and something to leave them would support 100% IHT growstuff. There’s nothing immoral in having earned your money by legal means, paid your taxes and wanting to leave something for your children and maybe charity. Charities rely heavily on legacies so 100% IHT (or anything approaching that) would wipe them out. The Treasury already gets a hefty chunk of money from the estates of deceased taxpayers. Quite enough IMO.