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

Urmstongran

To buy stuff with it MaizieD?
Certainly not to hoard it I imagine.

I've tried to say this before on GN.
Sad individuals who hoard more than they or their descendants will ever need while others starve/die.
How does it make them happy?

UC uplift was only meant to be temporary. But bearing in mind how costs have soared it should have stayed and even increased.

Time for voters to think carefully.

Does anybody pay their gardener/cleaner enough, so they can pay £30,000 to avoid UK tax?

Time for voters to think carefully.

Indeed! People need to make democracy work.

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.

growstuff

Jaxjacky

Smileless2012 and I wonder how many on GN pay their cleaner/gardener etc cash in hand?

I wonder how many on GN can afford a cleaner/gardener.

I pay by bank transfer.

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 he doesn't. He knows how to accumulate money for himself. That's a whole different ball game from looking after the wealth of a nation.

As I understand it if you hold a Green Card you have to pay your taxes in USA.

GrannyGravy13

growstuff

Jaxjacky

Smileless2012 and I wonder how many on GN pay their cleaner/gardener etc cash in hand?

I wonder how many on GN can afford a cleaner/gardener.

I pay by bank transfer.

People pay me by bank transfer too. It's years since anybody paid me in cash. I pay my window cleaner by bank transfer too. It's years since I used cash in my daily life.

Blossoming

F. Scott Fitzgerald ‘All The Sad Young Men’.

As he goes on to say, they possess and enjoy early and it does something to them.

They don’t understand what it’s like to be poor and they never will.

A very apt quote.

I doubt very much that the Sunaks really know the value of money.

Once I reached the age that I was old enough to work in a shop I worked on Saturdays in Woolies. From what I remember my wage for the day was around 12 to 13 shillings. At that time a single 45 cost 6/8d and an album about 30 shillings. The first album that I bought was the Beatles "Please Please Me" and in order to buy it I had to save 3 days pay.

I am sure that I am not alone in this and I am not complaining. It did, however, give me an idea of the value of money which has never left me. I still work and I still think "how many hours before I can this or that"

That is the difference between the Sunaks and the vast majority of the population.

GrannyGravy13

As I understand it if you hold a Green Card you have to pay your taxes in USA.

Yes, you do, but you also have to commit to “make the US your permanent home”, which doesn't show a great commitment to the country whose finances you're controlling.

growstuff

GrannyGravy13

growstuff how would you distribute wealth more equally ? Surely the point is to earn one’s money?

There was a social experiment for TV in Jaywick Essex a few years ago where they gave some families a larger sum of money than they were used to, from what I recall it didn’t end particularly well.

I'd start off by taxing inheritance at 100%, so everybody starts off from the same starting block in life.

No Government will bring in 100% inheritance tax.

Why the need to control others accumulated wealth, if it’s been made legally and tax is paid.

I do not mean the super rich I mean those who have scrimped and saved to buy their own home, what on earth is wrong with handing it down to one’s children or grandchildren?

US example, but I think its relevant. I don’t think most of us realise just how rich ”super rich” people are. Mackenzie Scott got rich by being married to a person who got rich. She is the 22nd richest person in the world and is giving away her wealth faster than anybody ever has before.

Recently she gave away $2.7 billion and while she was organising that her fortune grew by more that $2.7 billion. She literally can’t give it away fast enough.

Also, can someone explain to me how it is compatible that we all have to earn our money but its somehow OK to have money and property your parents leave you, that you haven't done anything to generate?

I'm not advocating taking money away from people until they're dead! Shrouds don't have pockets. I'm suggesting one way people could start off in the same place financially - it's then up to them if they earn money throughout life.

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?

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.

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.

Doodledog

Germanshepherdsmum

You don’t have to be ‘very rich’ to be treated as an individual for tax purposes. Every person liable to pay UK tax is treated as an individual.
As regards household income being considered for benefits purposes, wouldn’t there be an outcry if the spouse of a high earner were paid UC? That could easily happen if household income were not taken into account.
As regards the so-called cut in UC, GrannyGravy says it all. How many ordinary working people received a permanent £20 pw wage increase during the pandemic?

I don't understand why we are taxed as individuals but benefit and other entitlements are paid as households, other than as social engineering to encourage marriage.

My views on means-testing are well-documented on here (I hate it ), but I also think that adults who are able to contribute to the coffers should do so in their own right, and that couples shouldn't be given an unfair advantage over single people. The state shouldn't give financial advantage to one way of living over another, IMO.

If someone has contributed via tax/NI they should be able to claim benefits (and by this I mean pension, unemployment benefit, maternity pay etc, whether or not I would view them as 'benefits' ordinarily) as an individual, and their spouse's income should be irrelevant. Equally, I don't think that couples where only one person has paid in should expect to get two lots out when it comes to claims, so I would more clearly restore the link between contributions and entitlements, and remove any tax benefits to belonging to a couple, too.

Wrt the Sunaks, I agree with Coastpath:
^To use or condone the use by family members of these methods of absolving the duty to pay our way fairly (not legally, but fairly and with charitable intent) says something about a person which does not sit right with my idea of someone who becomes an MP in order to serve their country and make society a better place for all.^

I agree. Problem is that successive governments have tinkered with individual benefits (notably disability benefits) over the last few years, so that means testing of some and not all makes very little sense. 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.

Problem is, that left in the hands of this and other Tory governments eventually the goal is ‘small state’ and consequentially, a massively shrunken welfare state. The ordinary working man and woman see it as a safety net - you pay in when you can and it’s there if you need it. But imho the Tories see it as a gravy train and they want it gone. They can’t do it overnight so a slow erosion is taking place under our noses. An example of this was the change from Disability Living Allowance to Personal Independence Payment in 2013.. The theory was that DLA was far too easy to claim and open to fraud (the instance of which was later proved to be around 0.5%) and that PIP would deliver massive savings because it would be much harder to claim. The savings never happened because after PIP was introduced, the government realised that the vast majority of DLA claims had been genuine and the successful appeal rates against frankly ridiculous cases of denial of PIP, soared. The plan now, is that by 2027, PIP will no longer be a universal benefit. It will be absorbed into the Universal Credit system, means tested and will not be available for anyone who doesn’t qualify for UC. Millions of disabled people will lose vital support and the Motability scheme that gave disabled people their independence, will collapse. If you can’t get what you want first time round, move the goal posts until you do.

Sunak is just the latest example of hypocrisy and double standards, and despite the headline this morning that his wife has decided to pay tax in the UK to ‘save her husbands’ career’, I’ve no doubt that he’s in a better position than most to advise on how to pay as little as possible. A government of billionaires can’t/won’t represent ordinary people and will have little idea of the pressures they face - how can they when they’re massively cushioned from the policies they enact on the rest of us ? Until the British public wake up and realise this, I’m afraid we’re stuck with it.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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.