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

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 ?

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.

Good posts Germanshepherdsmum and Doodledog ?????

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

GrannyGravy13

Good posts Germanshepherdsmum and Doodledog ?????

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

WTF has accumulating wealth got to do with running a national economy? A country is not a business. It doesn't have to earn money and make a profit.

The UK has a 'sovereign currency'. We can issue as much of it as we please. A chancellor's job should be to ensure that the nation's money, our money, public money, is spent for the benefit of the individuals that comprise 'the nation'. The money should be keeping people employed, nurturing the young, the old, the sick and the helpless; fighting and mitigating the effects of climate change, keeping the nation healthy' oh, there's loads to spend it on. And all the time it's being spent it is keeping the economy open and thriving.

Conversely, the chancellor should, among other things, be using taxation to control inflation,and to ensure that too much money isn't sucked out of the country by those who just want to accumulate enormous, unproductive wealth.

there would be little or no need for Universal Credit, which costs the taxpayer a fortune.

Did you know that people on 'benefits' are 'taxpayers' too?

growstuff

I agree with you Doodledog. Benefits should be based on the individual, no matter what the circumstances of the other people in the household are - and it's not just spouses/partners.

Can I present the reverse side of the coin. It’s not just about multiple claims within a household. I have my own home and a modest pension income. When my partner moved in with me some years ago, he was on disability benefits - most of which were means tested. My income - which was earned during my working life and nothing whatever to do with him - was taken into account fully. He lost 90% of the benefits to which he was entitled through years of working and paying his taxes, and forced to rely on my income. We could have claimed he was a lodger and paying rent, and he would have been assessed differently, but we were honest and paid the price. So it works both ways.

I do agree with Maizie in that when wealth becomes obscene because there’s so much of it, it seems pointless and could be used to alleviate the distress of others. Abramovich has/had (not sure which is correct now) five super yachts, several mansions and a lot more. It’s sheer greed. I despise him. Why does he think he deserves it?

Unfortunately the royals fall into this category too. Why are they ‘worth it’ to borrow a phrase from a well known advertisement.

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…

Oh, I don't know, GG13, how about the companies that employ them lowering their profits, or paying out less in dividends?

Increased wages mean more money to be circulated in the domestic economy... is that a good or a bad thing?

Shropshirelass

What Rishi Sunak and his wife have or do not have has no bearing on decisions made with the Governments purse strings. Quite honestly, Rishi and his wife have done nothing wrong and it really is none of our business. What would anyone do if they were fortunate enough to be in their position? We all take advantage of schemes that are available to us.

well one thing I can be sure of; if I had their income I would not go into politics with the sole purpose of making life more difficult for people.

MaizieD

^there would be little or no need for Universal Credit, which costs the taxpayer a fortune.^

Did you know that people on 'benefits' are 'taxpayers' too?

Yes, thank you. Congratulations, you win the internet for today by being so intent on calling me out for wording you’ve misinterpreted, that you’ve entirely missed the point I was making. You’ve also reposted a part sentence from my original post, which now appears totally out of context.

My point was that if employers paid a living wage there would be a massive saving on Universal Credit because there would be no need for wages to be topped up at the expense of the tax payer. So the knock on effect of prices going up as a result of higher wages would hopefully be mitigated in part.

Universal Credit replaced six 'legacy benefits' with the aim of streamlining and simplifying the benefits system for both benefits claimants and those administering the system. It was designed to make sure claimants were better off in work, by topping up wages each month, reducing gradually as claimants earned more, and increasing if a job ended or earnings reduced. UC has been heavily criticised almost from the day it was introduced, as being inefficient, complicated and expensive to administer. If there was no longer a need for wages to be supplemented, the UC system could be scrapped and the individual legacy benefits reintroduced in a simpler and more cost effective way. It was not my intention to criticise or otherwise offend anyone claiming benefits and I apologise if my wording could have been better.