How Does Robber Reeves Do Her Sums?

Interestingly, growstuff, Norway abolished Inheritance Tax a decade ago.

growstuff

Allira

No, I'd rather honest upfront taxes!

Incidentally, I seem to be paying a lot more on my pensions this year and am hardly any better off than last year despite a tiny rise.

I'm paying the same percentage on my pensions, but I'm no better off because my Housing Benefit went down to offset my increased pension.

I don't know what's happening so may need to get my calculator out.

apparently no IHT was paid on the Duke of Westminster's estate, which seems ridiculous.

IIRC there was little or no IHT paid on the Duke of Westminster's inheritance (somewhere in the region of £9billion, I think) because it was all tied up in a Trust that was not subject to IHT (some trust funds are).

I have no doubt that this device, and others, are extensively used by the wealthy and super wealthy to minimise, or avoid altogether, IHT.

Like growstuff I think this is ridiculous.

taxjustice.uk/blog/how-do-the-super-rich-avoid-inheritance-tax/

Allira

No, I'd rather honest upfront taxes!

Incidentally, I seem to be paying a lot more on my pensions this year and am hardly any better off than last year despite a tiny rise.

I'm paying the same percentage on my pensions, but I'm no better off because my Housing Benefit went down to offset my increased pension.

No, I'd rather honest upfront taxes!

Incidentally, I seem to be paying a lot more on my pensions this year and am hardly any better off than last year despite a tiny rise.

Allira

That's what I meant.

That great Socialist, Anthony Wedgewood-Benn, also made use of all the loopholes too. If they are there, then why not? But, of course, it costs more money to do so.

It's like grave-robbing.

I'd rather be robbed when I'm dead than still alive.

To be honest, I'd rather people were taxed progressively when they're still alive, but the disadvantage to the Chancellor is that they'd be in a better position to object.

That's what I meant.

That great Socialist, Anthony Wedgewood-Benn, also made use of all the loopholes too. If they are there, then why not? But, of course, it costs more money to do so.

It's like grave-robbing.

GrannyGravy13

growstuff I object on so many levels, particularly though how it is administered.

The administration can change.

I'm in two minds. On the one hand I think it's totally unfair that some children have an advantage, which they have done nothing to earn, which others just don't have.

On the other hand, it's by no means the only driver of inequality and also there are so many loopholes - apparently no IHT was paid on the Duke of Westminster's estate, which seems ridiculous. It raises a relatively small amount and it isn't very efficient.

growstuff I object on so many levels, particularly though how it is administered.

growstuff

Why is inheritance always considered to be such a big issue when it only affects 5% of estates?

It's farmers that concern some of us.

I do wonder if our metropolitan politicians know where their food comes from, just how it is produced and what slim profits can be the result.

GrannyGravy13

Some, myself included just do not agree with IHT, it’s totally irrelevant how many or who it affects.

Fair enough! As a matter of interest, why do you object to it?

Allira Norway has a reputation for having crippling rates of tax. However, curiously, my partner worked (partly) for a Norwegian employer until he retired and only paid 17% on his Norwegian earnings, despite paying 40% of most of his income in the UK.

The reason for that is that Norwegians pay all sorts of other taxes, such as land tax, a tax on the value of your home, wealth tax, VAT @ 25% and National Insurance. As he wasn't resident in Norway, he didn't pay those.

Norwegians generally pay more tax overall, but it's organised differently.

Some, myself included just do not agree with IHT, it’s totally irrelevant how many or who it affects.

Why is inheritance always considered to be such a big issue when it only affects 5% of estates?

Yes, I think many are. Some have gained huge advantages from being born into a well off family and don't want to share those advantages with others less fortunate. I think that's "selfish".

Presumably you mean inheritance tax.

If people have worked hard, paid their fair taxes over the years, why should their hard-earned gains be taken away from them after they have died?
The very wealthy, including a few politicians, are able to set up trusts etc to avoid paying.

Even if inheritance tax was not abolished, then introducing bands such as with income tax would be fairer.

I suppose farmers are included in "the wealthy".

How do other countries manage without having inheritance tax? Is their rate of income tax higher, which is far more honest?

"Are you actually endorsing politicians lies?!
Absoutely not, just telling it how it is!

"Labour made so many promises, they underestimated how difficult governing is as opposed to being the opposition."

Did they? I don't think so but they could not guess what events were round the corner, just as the previous government couldn't. My comments are general, GG13 not specific to Labour

"As for the electorate being selfish…"
Yes, I think many are. Some have gained huge advantages from being born into a well off family and don't want to share those advantages with others less fortunate. I think that's "selfish".

GrannyGravy13

Grantanow

Call her what you like, she is the Chanceller of the Exchequer and her decisions are important. Personally, I doubt any Party's ability to restore significant economic growth. We have been living on debt for decades and the reckoning is imminent.

Sorry Grantanow whilst the electorate believe the debt fairytale, the Government of the day will get away with austerity measures.

👏👏👏

Grantanow

Call her what you like, she is the Chanceller of the Exchequer and her decisions are important. Personally, I doubt any Party's ability to restore significant economic growth. We have been living on debt for decades and the reckoning is imminent.

Sorry Grantanow whilst the electorate believe the debt fairytale, the Government of the day will get away with austerity measures.

Call her what you like, she is the Chanceller of the Exchequer and her decisions are important. Personally, I doubt any Party's ability to restore significant economic growth. We have been living on debt for decades and the reckoning is imminent.

I think she uses an Abacus turns it upside down gives it a shake and "hey presto"

I have to agree about the playground language - even that is a bit of an insult to most children. And where does it get us? Do we learn anything? The extremist rhetoric (from both sides) simply shows people's bias. People who start with a belief and don't want anyone to tell them anything differently.

Stephen Millard, the Deputy Director of the think tank whose views are being spun by far-left and far-right alike also laid a lot of the blame on President Trump "coming in and creating a huge amounts of uncertainty with tariffs". Where has this been mentioned by the right-wing fanatics or the far-left for that matter?

The old phrase "When America Sneezes, the rest of the World catches a cold" should be ringing in our ears as, whatever we any government did here they would still have both the backlash of Brexit and the problems from America, a couple of wars, 14 years of the running down of the economy, and the increasing wealth inequality to cope with.

When the childish comments go and reasonable discussion is in place that acknowledges our actual widespread ignorance in this area it might be worth coming back to.

I think Rachel made the mistake of attacking as she thought, rich pensioners and then moved on to the disabled.

I am fortunate I do not have to live on the state pension alone but she would find it impossible.

In my opinion there is no shining star in any party who could tackle this tremendous job. She is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

She hasn’t a clue.
This government is a complete disaster, our country is being given away by Starmer and his cronies.

I am allowed my opinion and this is what I believe.

foxie48

Who'd want to be chancellor of the exchequer? Seems we all want better services but most don't want to pay for them. Our economy is adversely affected by world events over which we have no control. Telling the truth is likely to keep you out of power, so politicians tell lies. Most voters have little or no understanding of economics and quite a few are IMO selfish. It's the worst job I can imagine especially when trying to run an economy with as many challenges as we have in the UK currently.

Yes, I agree with you Foxie! Well said.

foxie48

Who'd want to be chancellor of the exchequer? Seems we all want better services but most don't want to pay for them. Our economy is adversely affected by world events over which we have no control. Telling the truth is likely to keep you out of power, so politicians tell lies. Most voters have little or no understanding of economics and quite a few are IMO selfish. It's the worst job I can imagine especially when trying to run an economy with as many challenges as we have in the UK currently.

It’s a job she wanted.

Are you actually endorsing politicians lies?

Labour made so many promises, they underestimated how difficult governing is as opposed to being the opposition.

As for the electorate being selfish…