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

MaizieD not all employers make millions in profits, especially at the moment.
There are thousands of small businesses who are just about managing and any extra costs incurred have to be passed on to the end user

I don't think that hatred of the extremely wealthy or envy of those with untold wealth is a good starting point for any potential changes we would like to the current Tax Code. I am perfectly happy with what Sunak's wife earns, not my concern, but what is my concern is that as a couple, they don't have the awareness to work out that what is seen by many as 'dodging tax' is not morally appropriate when Sunak, as chancellor, is making decisions which effect everyone's life. I do not expect him to have any idea of how some people have to live their lives, any more than I have any idea of how the super rich run theirs, but surely some kind of advise from staff, even reading the newspapers would give him some idea. What is important to remember is that if a person on average income gets an increase of say 10% on take home income by reduced taxation/increased income, then that money will go back into the economy; apply the same to the super wealthy and that money is stashed, stored, probably in an offshore tax haven.

That’s so true GrannyGravy. I fully support payment of a living wage but people must accept that it will be reflected in the prices they pay.

growstuff

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.

You may have heard of a system where theoretically everyone has the same start in life and everyone is equal. It’s called communism. And in every instance it causes more problems than it solves, quashes enterprising spirit and takes away the incentive to do well in life. The system you’re proposing means that no matter how hard you work in life, you never have anything to leave to your loved ones - your ‘wealth’ is redistributed when you die. Sounds lovely, but unfortunately, in time it would breed the type of resentment which inevitably leads to corruption. We’re all human and flawed, and some will always find a way to be more ‘equal’ than others, no matter how you legislate.

Pammie1

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.

I think there has been a thread on that. I know I have often commented on the fact that it is the company that benefits and it should therefore be up to the company, that can show it cannot pay proper living wages to some of it's employees, to apply to the government for loans or grants, whichever is appropriate.

I think there would be an immediate rebalancing of top and bottom wages and an honest view of dividends. No company would want to declare they had to turn to the government under normal circumstances. It could, however, be good for startups and community businesses.

Pammie1

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'm not doubting you Pammie, just seeking knowledge. Which disability benefit were means tested. - Just so I can chain myself to the right railing

It seems like there is a lot of resentment of people who are “well off”.

You may have heard of a system where theoretically everyone has the same start in life and everyone is equal. It’s called communism. And in every instance it causes more problems than it solves, quashes enterprising spirit and takes away the incentive to do well in life. The system you’re proposing means that no matter how hard you work in life, you never have anything to leave to your loved ones - your ‘wealth’ is redistributed when you die. Sounds lovely, but unfortunately, in time it would breed the type of resentment which inevitably leads to corruption. We’re all human and flawed, and some will always find a way to be more ‘equal’ than others, no matter how you legislate.

That's not communism, its fairness. I've worked damn hard in life and I have no "loved ones" to leave anything to. I intend to spend all my money before I die and leave the house to the cats' home. Or something similar. DH has started 2 businesses so I guess you could call him enterprising. No children in sight.

I have no idea why anybody wants to leave big sums of money to their children, I suppose its a natural attitude, but a pathological need to keep your own money just to pass it on to your descendants is one that has passed me by.

I am rather uncomfortable with the fact that Ms Murta, despite being non domiciled was able to claim huge amounts of furlough payments for her uk businesses.

Rosalyn69

It seems like there is a lot of resentment of people who are “well off”.

Why do people always regard a desire for equality as "resentment"? It's not resentment to think that there should be some degree of fairness in the system. The system now not only discrminates against the very poorest but also against the middle income famiies who find themselves with expenses for their children even when they reach adulthood. The very rich of course buy second or third homes in lovely areas, is it resentment to think that everyone should be able to live in a decent, secure, reasonably sized home? And to realise that if the very rich stopped buying property they don't use there woud be more and cheaper housing available?

I don’t have a ‘pathological need’ to pass money to my son volver though I believe that may be the case in some cultures. It is as you surmise a natural desire that I have. I love him and wish to leave something to him and also to a number of charities that I support. The government will take quite enough of my hard-earned and already taxed money to ‘redistribute’.

Rosalyn69

It seems like there is a lot of resentment of people who are “well off”.

Where?

Urmstongran

Well communism doesn’t work either.
Look at Venezuela. Mind you Corbyn was impressed ...

Well communism doesn’t work either.

No, it doesn't.

But why present that as the alternative?

Other countries manage a healthy Capitalist economy with adequate welfare nets, and public spending where it's needed.

We could, too.

I do not resent the extremely wealthy Rosalyn69, I do resent the fact that just a slight adjustment, even just a couple of thousand pounds a year, can make a huge difference to so many people, a sum of money which the extremely wealthy would not even notice. To put it in context; Ms Murta has an income of £27bn, and will now have to pay £2m in tax, in terms that make more sense; if she had £27,000 in income, she would have to pay an additional £20 in tax. Looks very different seen like that doesn't it?

I get what you're saying, Pammiel but people on UC are taxpayers, too. It's the implication that they are somehow disadvantaging other people in society that worries me.

'Taxpayers' don't fund government spending anyway. Government spends, then taxes back. Not the other way round.

OK! So people won't accept the idea of ensuring that all babies do at least have an equal opportunity the moment they are born, which doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

How about ensuring that every child has the best possible start in life by providing them with a genuinely world class education and funding state schools at the same level as the average for all private schools?

How about making sure that everybody receives genuinely free healthcare with no queue jumping, without money being siphoned off to private providers?

How about making sure that everybody can afford basic nutritional food and has adequately heated homes?

How about accepting that there's a very poor correlation between "working hard" and acquiring wealth? And accepting that some people don't deserve their wealth on their own merits - or their poverty?

DaisyAnne

Pammie1

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'm not doubting you Pammie, just seeking knowledge. Which disability benefit were means tested. - Just so I can chain myself to the right railing

Wasn’t meant as a criticism of you DaisyAnne. There have been a few post which have detailed the unfairness of couples being able to claim benefit/pension based on one persons’ contributions - which I’m not disagreeing with at all. I was just trying to add a little balance because on the other side of the coin, the system claws back benefit based on means testing to the bone where people can least afford it, whilst being more generous elsewhere. My partner was claiming Employment and Support Allowance - 90% of which was income based and means tested. He lost all but the contribution based allowance. Income based ESA is now in the process of being rolled into Universal Credit along with 5 other legacy benefits, and if the government gets its’ way, by 2027 Personal Independence Payment (PIP) will also join UC and so will be means tested.

Resentment of perceived wealth always rears its head on these threads Rosalyn. I worked hard for my professional qualifications and then worked very long hours for which I took home a healthy sum after paying a lot of tax. I only have one home but have savings and investments. So I feel the resentment quite keenly and the notion of some that everything I have earned should be taken when I die and redistributed is abhorrent.

That’s exactly how I feel Germanshepherdsmum

Germanshepherdsmum

I don’t have a ‘pathological need’ to pass money to my son volver though I believe that may be the case in some cultures. It is as you surmise a natural desire that I have. I love him and wish to leave something to him and also to a number of charities that I support. The government will take quite enough of my hard-earned and already taxed money to ‘redistribute’.

I apologise for phrasing it that way GG13.

I don't understand when people get upset that they have to sell their houses to fund, for instance, their care costs in residential care. I don't understand how people can say they want to hold on to an asset that they will never again use but that we should pay up for their care, so that their son/daughter can inherit something that they haven't worked for.

trisher

Rosalyn69

It seems like there is a lot of resentment of people who are “well off”.

Why do people always regard a desire for equality as "resentment"? It's not resentment to think that there should be some degree of fairness in the system. The system now not only discrminates against the very poorest but also against the middle income famiies who find themselves with expenses for their children even when they reach adulthood. The very rich of course buy second or third homes in lovely areas, is it resentment to think that everyone should be able to live in a decent, secure, reasonably sized home? And to realise that if the very rich stopped buying property they don't use there woud be more and cheaper housing available?

I don't 'resent' the wealthy as such. I resent the fact that there is all that wasted money being hoarded when there is so much that could be done with it. There are countries crying out for help to mitigate and delay man made climate change, for a start.

If, as suggested somewhere this morning, money is a tool, why keep it locked, completely idle, in the tool shed?

I also don't understand why people advocating a more equal society are thought to be resentful. Its quite disparaging of people who would like the world to get better.

Working Family Tax Credit (as was) was a great benefit to the large employers, such as supermarkets, who paid their employees less in the knowledge that the workers would get a to up. That differential contributed to the dividends that the companies paid. If they put their employees wages up they would certainly increase their prices. Or hammer some of their suppliers. They most certainly would not want to reduce their dividends.

In the past we use to holiday at a friend's house in Lot et Garonne. One of our activities was to tour the vinyards and buy wine direct. One of the areas was Fronton. We used to buy Fronton from Sainsbury but they stopped selling it. We ended up at the same vinyard and asked the shop lady why we could no longer buy it. The answer was that one year JS asked the makers to reduce their price. Which they did. The same request was made the following year and was rejected. It was a brave thing to do because the owner had poured a lot of money into restoring the vines and investing in new plant etc.

I think that a similar thing is happening now to milk producers.

GrannyGravy13

That’s exactly how I feel Germanshepherdsmum

I’m sorry but something has passed me by here. Why does anyone feel resentment towards you gg13 and gsm?

What have you done to attract such resentment?

growstuff

OK! So people won't accept the idea of ensuring that all babies do at least have an equal opportunity the moment they are born, which doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

How about ensuring that every child has the best possible start in life by providing them with a genuinely world class education and funding state schools at the same level as the average for all private schools?

How about making sure that everybody receives genuinely free healthcare with no queue jumping, without money being siphoned off to private providers?

How about making sure that everybody can afford basic nutritional food and has adequately heated homes?

How about accepting that there's a very poor correlation between "working hard" and acquiring wealth? And accepting that some people don't deserve their wealth on their own merits - or their poverty?

I wouldn’t disagree with any of this and I haven’t seen a single post that disagrees with equal opportunity. But you propose to fund it by a 100% IHT on the property people leave behind when they die. Property that they’ve worked for all their lives and which are already subject to what amounts to confiscation by the state should they need care services in later life. Add the fact that they’ve already paid tax in various ways on that property throughout their lives, I think it’s a bit rich to ask people to stomach the tax man coming along and taking the lot, the moment they pop their clogs.