By Will Straw / @wdjstraw
In his keynote speech at Demos, titled “Progressive reform in an age of austerity,” George Osborne refused to embrace a policy of progressive taxation or set out what a progressive foreign policy under a Conservative government would mean.
Osborne claimed that, “the Conservative Party is now the dominant progressive force in British politics.” But answering my question on whether the Conservative party would scrap their regressive proposal to raise the threshold on inheritance tax to £1 million, Osborne embraced his policy which was intended, he said, “to reward aspiration and encourage saving for retirement.”
When it was announced in 2007, the Conservative party’s inheritance tax policy was costed at £3 billion. As Tim Horton of the Fabian Society has explained on Newsnight, the tax is progressive since the top 50% of people in the UK own 93% of the wealth, and the bottom 50% own just 7%. Research by the Labour party suggests that the proposed cut would be worth an average of £200,000 for 3,000 millionaires.
Later, in answer to a question about foreign policy, Osborne said, “Michael Gove and I stay silent on foreign policy.” But Michael Gove’s 2006 book, Celsius 7/7 was described by the Telegraph as, “a ferocious philippic directed against Islamists and their Western appeasers.”
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
I suspect if my daughter had a say in it then it would be "the original non-inheritance tax payer but boy did she know how to use it"s car...
Possibly the best car ever made
It is mainly due to the colour I think. Only my opinion though ;)
I only hope I haven't screwed up the html!!!
And as the very rich don't pay it anyway, even if you support redistribution it doesn't work.
When you borrow money from a bank - what difference does it make to you whether that money was deposited by an uber-wealthy individual or the government or by thousands of little people?
How is 1,000,000 people having £1000 on deposit better than 1 person having a billion on deposit?
Its not your money (nor mine) - so what is it to you? or me?
Someone with a billion on deposit is likely to be a big spender, with yachts, houses etc - employing many people, providing many jobs. A million people with a thousand on deposit will probably be treating it as a nest egg, and rarely spending any of it. And if they do spend it, then they are poor again - so what are you going to do about that? give it back to them again? and again? and again?
This is where my 'obsession' with wealth creation comes in - creating your own wealth is the only sustainable way of fending off poverty - if you aren't creating it then you are consuming it, and you will need constant top ups -- from someone else who *has* created it.
You can take money from a rich person who earns it and give that money to the poor - but unless the poor can earn as much as they spend the rich person will just earn it all back again... If you keep taking it then the rich man may get bored and stop bothering to earn it back, the poor will have nothing to buy with their money so it will be useless and everyone will be poor.
Giving people money is not sustainable - they have to 'learn to earn' it for themselves.
TT,
>>ConservativeHome
Don't they know that you alone are responsible for looking after yourself.
Have a word.....
Aston Martin Rapide
or
Porsche Panamera
Now, how will sir be paying. credit is a bit difficult to come by nowadays unless your a Goldman Sachs trader in which case you could probably just use a bit of your bonus.
Sorry Louis, but you can't get a kids seat in a 360 ;)
Of course if Ferrari were a dodgy english brand, labour would tax you the price of the car and 'give' it to you. Not giving you the choice... on how to spend your money.
Swings and roundabouts ;)
So what you're saying Peter is that anyone that disagrees with your viewpoint on inheritance tax doesn't give a stuff about anyone else? Maybe it's that I think I can make better descisions on how it's spent than those that apparently should.
Tell you what, you guarantee me 100% that not 1p of it would go to funding more MP's expenses, Quangos, outreach co-ordinators and will go to helping provide for the sick, aged, handicapped or impoverished and I may just change my mind on it.
Problem is that you can't can you? The reason? How many years have we had inheritance tax and yet the gap between the squires in the guarded mansions and the rest of us has just got bigger. And moreso apparently under a government that is supposed to be the party of the sick, aged, handicapped or impoverished.
Sort out that first and then I'll listen to you on inheritance tax.
Can you expand on this Chris as this doesn't sound like inheritance tax? Sounds a better idea on the surface.
As you say, swings and roundabouts. I still think it's wrong whichever government uses it.
"A progressive tax is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases."
It's fairly accurate. In a progressive tax system the poor will carry a lower amount of the tax burden. The problem with a lot of our indirect taxes (VAT, insurance levies etc.) is that they're regressive: the poor tend to pay more of their income in tax.
The term progressive taxation isn't entirely accurate though because the tax burden on the poor is not being reduced, it it the tax burdens on anyone who earns above a certain amount that is being increased. It can't be classed as redistribution or progressive to my mind. If taxes really where progressive, surely there would be an increase in the threshold for tax on the low paid and punitive taxes would be abolished in favour of more targeted tax?
Its strange how the political argument from Labour at the moment is that the Conservatives are not progressive, yet the sounds coming from the Conservatives appear to more in line with progression than that of their Labour colleagues. Just an observation and I've no doubt the sounds will be muffled in the next couple of years, but 'progressive' is just an overused buzz word as far as I'm concerned and an annoying one at that.
I'd get rid of it tomorrow along with most taxes on earned income.
It's unearned income from privilege which should be taxed, and whether it's the father or the daughter who is privileged is immaterial.
True. We should have. Of course none of them would have actually gone bust. Although some would have default on debt and be sold for a pound. The way banks under the Tories did. Cost to the tax payer zero.
It is a shame some people who purchased bonds and other debt instruments would have lost their investment, but an investor is supposed to make a risk reward decision. Capitalism under a Socialist government seems to have become heads I win, tails the tax payer looses.
The cost of failure is a vital part of functional capitalism, but Socialists interfere with the workings of the system, then have the audacity to complain the system doesn't work. What what the hell do you expect!
The bailout will be remembered as a govermental disaster.
My point of view is that it is wrong either end of the scale Peter. Don't get me wrong, if the threshold was 10k I'm be positively foaming at the mouth by now and ringing up to have placards made, but the whole basis for inheritance tax is just wrong. As I say, its unlikely to effect me. I don't own or have a share in property any more and I doubt with my current attitude to money that I'll be earning a million any time soon, but it doesn't change my view on it.
I've looked at it from another angle because I am attempting to find the logic in it, to whether I'd be willing to pay more taxes to ensure that inheritance tax could be abolished. The answer at the moment is no, not when there are millionarres paying the taxman £30k so they can bypass hundreds of thousands in tax that they avoiding from income earned here in Britain.
One of the things that made me stay in England was that I percieved that I could start with nothing, build a good business through hardwork and help contribute to society along the way. Upon death, provide my children with the means to ensure they never have to spend a single night inside a McDonald's bin wrapping themselves in cardboard to keep warm (I know thats an extreme, but I went from living in relative wealth to exactly that because I was stubborn and opinionated). It turns out I can do all of that, but if I choose to do that I'm subject to punitive taxes whilst those who really were born into priveledge and money can bypass that system, paying virtually nothing into the country that earns them their money. It's a con trick in my view, a sham.
All progressive taxes fall disproportionately on the rich. Why is that? Because society has concluded that paying 140k out of a 1 million pound estate is more equitable than paying 1.4k out of a 10k estate. I'll leave you to work out why.
The money has been earned. It was presumably taxed as it was earned. Any pensions built up whilst earning that money is taxed. So how is it unearned income? What, because the person recieving it may not have had a hand in earning the money that has been taxed repeatedly already, they deserve to have a wedge of it taken from them just after they've buried a loved one?
I'm really struggling with this one to try my best to understand where those in favour of inheritance tax are coming from, I really am. I may come across as annoyed about it, but its just making me wonder why people readily accept this form of tax is justified, especially when it misses the percieved target, the rich. The words fair and equal seem to have bypassed this debate completely because there is nothing fair or equal about taxing a small percentage of people for their life's work because they can't afford to avoid it. It doesn't help the poor because the money collected with this tax doesn't magically get redistributed to the poor, it is wasted on quangos, consultants and dare I mention it again, expenses for MPs.
The very people who tax the dead will not pay that tax themselves or am I missing something really obvious?
That's your business, not mine.
But whether it's you or they who are privileged, tax should be paid on the unearned income derived at the expense of everyone else.
ie pre-distribution, not re-distribution.
You'll have to forgive us simple folk, Peter, but it is. We look at our payslip at the end of the week and see how much tax we pay and then look at Balls, Blears or Smith flipping and defrauding every year what it takes us a decade to earn. And please explain 'progressive', the crooks and spivs running the PLP would like to know too.
I didn't mean to miss your question either, I was trying to answer it all but I have to scroll up, reread a bit, then comment. For some reason my browser decides to make me comment a good few scrolls down the page. Anyway, in answer to that, I have no confidence at the moment in government. I had hoped that Labour would fulfil their promises and they would bring about a new era in politics, but they appear to have been even more wasteful than the Conservatives were, which takes some doing. I don't disagree with the majority of taxes. I wish I didn't have to pay, but if I want schools, hospitals and a chance for everyone, I accept that it takes taxes to do that, but inheritance tax, it misses the target completely. It taxes those who have done well in life, but not quite well enough to dodge it and that to me is not fair and it is certainly not equal.
We're at completely opposite ends Peter. Unless we can find a middle ground we agree on then our debate isn't really going to go anywhere. Not every debate ends up with someone's mind being changed and in this case we are so far away from each others opinion, it would either take one of us to abandon what we believe or just have to agree to disagree. I won't be abandoning my belief on this and I very much doubt you're about to reply in complete agreement with my stance either.
I appreciate the children may well not have earned the income themselves, but it is not unearned income in many cases. I could go to the effort of listing hundreds of people who started with nothing, people in poverty, who have lifted themselves out of poverty through hard work and determination and for what? They are taxed for it their entire lives and the very legacy they spend their lives working towards for their family is taxed after they've gone.
Again, it doesn't effect the rich, they can bypass inheritance tax altogether, and in many cases get themselves classed as a non-dom for £30k so they don't pay tax while they are alive either. They will remain rich, their families will remain rich, but what about the people who are hardworking, who are determined to give their families a better life? Am I making any sense to you with my argument here at all?
I don't expect you to do a u-turn and agree with me, especially considering the fact that I've been rude to you twice in one discussion, but can you at least see what I'm getting at? Inheritance tax is a tax on those who have really tried in life for the most part, not in every single case, but a sizeable number have took risks, built up businesses with nothing more than hardwork and determination and they have more than paid their dues when they are alive. The very least is that they can die knowing that what they worked for will be passed onto their family, or a charity whatever they decide to do with it, not that a portion of it is diverted to the treasury to be lumped in with speeding fines, council tax and capital gains tax. Its an unfair tax, it causes distress to those who have lost a loved one and it does make you wonder why anyone would bother to try if all they are met with is tax upon tax upon tax, then taxed again just for the hell of it.
And in another way you wouldn't have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds bringing them up so swings and roundabouts, peaks and troughs and all that.
I'm a self employed businessman too. I've generated wealth and employment for others. Less of your Guy M tactics about 'working for the public sector'.
Obviously, you've missed my whole point about inherited privilege. The end of inheritance tax would clearly make the tendency to dynasties even worse.
And finally, you completely avoided the question: what if that money didn't go on Parliamentary expenses, but on better schools, hospitals, transport, policing?
You say nothing I will say will change your mind because you feel 'strongly' about his. I feel strongly about it too. Great. Bang goes rational debate. But at least don't misrepresent what I'm saying.
As for the £860,000 figure in the quote, it was used to illustrate the difference between what a beneficiary of a couples estate worth £1,000,000 would receive under a Labour government as opposed to a Conservative one.
My point is that if any government is going to cut tax then they should not make a priority out of those people who already stand to inherit hundreds of thousands of pounds of unearned income.
It is beyond me why anyone on the left would not see this and surely even some people on the right would rather see the 50p income tax rate scrapped rather than raise the IHT threshold so that hard work rather than luck is rewarded.
The 'lucky sperm lottery' refers to beneficiaries of inheritances that have done nothing apart from be born into the right family. Children don't get to pick whether they are born to parents who work hard and build up a business which they are then left, or are born to a dad who piss away every penny on wine, women and amatuer dramatics.
As you probably now appreciate, at no point did I say IHT only affected people born into money.
You just don't get the aspiration thing do you? It isn't the people who are getting the inheritance that are aspiring, it is the person who works all their lives to ensure the next generation have a better life than they did.
With regards to whether it screws hardworking people, it all depends on whether you're basing your argument on who you percieve to work hard. Of course someone who starts their business from nothing and builds it up by taking all the risks, all the headache and the worry hasn't worked hard have they? No, that can only be assigned to the people who they created jobs for and ensured the business kept running for decades to pay those wages. You're right though, screw 'em, why should anyone bother to do that when we can all work for the public sector.
Political dynasties, hmm, weirdly Peter I thought we lived in a democracy. It shouldn't make the blindest bit of difference who Daddy was or who your grandfather happened to be, the Labour Party should be open to everyone and people should be able to work their way up to cabinet level on merit, not expect a place because of connections. What the hell has that got to do with my knowledge on history?
I'm not debating the threshold, I'm saying the tax shouldn't exist at all, but the fact the Conservatives are suggesting a rise to such a level makes me happier. I won't benefit from it Peter as I said, the way I live my life means I won't be leaving a huge inheritance, but I still disagree with the tax on death. It is not the same as a tax on the living because I choose to reside here, live and work here, so I accept that system. Doesn't mean I have to view inheritance tax as fair because I choose to live here does it? I can live my life abiding by every law and rule, but I can disagree with aspects of it if I believe it is wrong.
Sorry Peter, your answer to this is that it won't effect those on low wages, so its perfectly fair to tax someone on death for their lifetimes work. You may not see who the wealth creators are in this country, but they don't reside in Parliament. They have proved that they can waste money in a spectacular fashion, on both sides, but do they work hard for it? Do they take the risks that small to medium sized businesses do? All those low paid workers wouldn't even have wages if it wasn't for people who aspire to be more than where they came from, but then there we have it in a nut shell, I believe that someone can be born on a council estate and build a business empire if they have the nous to, an Alan Sugar sort of thing, but they shouldn't be taxed on death because the government want to be seen to be taxing the rich. As has been said, the rich don't pay it.
If I thought it would make a difference to how you look at this I'd dig out some facts and figures about who you're claiming this is targeted at and how they manage to get out of paying it, or even income tax while they're alive, but you're stubbornly fixed in a position as I am, so we either have to agree to disagree on this one Peter, or waste our day trading examples and filling up column space.
As for dragging every one down, surely you haven't thought through the consequences of an end to inheritance tax. Without it, the absolute rise to prosperity of the lower middle and working classes would have been virtually impossible over the last 60 years. There would have been no wider education, national health, and extension of infrastructure. There would have been little ability for people to get onto the property ladder.
It's a natural tendency for people to hoard money and privilege and pass it onto their offspring. We've seen this over many millennia. But for hundreds of years economists and political philosophers (of the left and right) have recognised that left unchecked this natural tendency will lead to social immobility, a stagnant and retarded economy where sinecures are 'bought' by people for their progeny, and where everyone suffers because the level of social investment in defence, policing, housing, roads and other public services is missing.
No man is an island, and no family is either, and none of you have addressed my concern about my children. I want them to live in a society where inequality is less, social mobility is higher, and crime, disease, poverty and ignorance are lower. This is more important to me than a few thousand extra quid in their pockets when I'm a goner and they (hopefully) are in their 60s.
"people who only get £860,000 through the lucky sperm lottery"
Or am I again mistaken and you meant something else by "lucky sperm lottery"? I wouldn't call starting a business from nothing and working hard all your life to build up a legacy for your kids as "lucky sperm lottery". I agree the ignorance is all on one side though, I've admitted I was mistaken and apologised for misreading something, so that would be a mistake rather than ignorance wouldn't it?
And why this sudden emotion about 'prizing money out of the hands of the dead'? That's just emotive nonsense. The dead won't notice, but their relatives might. But please remember that with life expectancy now in the low 80s, most the children involved in this will actually be in their mid 50s early 60s. Hardly buying their first flat.
Inheritance tax doesn't screw hard working people either. The thresholds are pretty high, if you hadn't noticed, and I'm not sure how many 'workers' will be involved. Whether other people evade the tax is not the issue. Just because some people cheat a law, it doesn't make that law wrong.
As for aspiration: I've actually known people who 'expect' inheritances. It does nothing for their aspiration. They're just waiting for a relative to die and pay off their debts. The whole will and legacy thing is a poison chalice, as countless stories attest. I'm rather proud of the fact I inherited virtually nothing from my parents, and have made my wealth on my own. Though I help my kids out any way I can, I also want them to pave their own way. We've talked about this, and they expect me to use up their inheritance in my profligate old age (probably most of it going on residential home costs).
As for your last point about fairness, dynastic inheritance is the key source of inequality. You seem to have missed out a basic bit of history here, because of our basic premises of a liberal society, an open and free market to tap the talents of the majority, nor the growth and dynamism of modern democracies, would have been possible without the attack on inherited privilege.
The tax on estates is one reason why, post war, most of us aren't working in service anymore for the aristocracy or the upper middle classes. It's been the basis of most modern democracies for a hundred years.
You may debate the threshold, but I can't believe you're abjuring the whole principle. As for Parliamentary expenses scandals, that's another matter. How would you feel if that money was spent on policing, hospitals, education, pensions (as most of it actually is)? And if you're complaining about misuse of tax revenues, why not stop paying VAT, income Tax or National Insurance, Bill?
Your last sentence is therefore just rhetoric. If you're against inheritance tax, in principle, as you say, then really you're against the progressive foundations of both the Labour and Liberal parties over two centuries.
As for my language, well that's twice you've called me ignorant when it's pretty obvious that the ignorance is all on one side here.
Still doesn't change your ignorance when it comes to assuming that this only effects people born into money, it doesn't excuse your language in replying and it doesn't make inheritance tax right. All it means is that I misread something at ten to one in the morning.
Really? Can I ask why/how?
Erm, no...
you have a strange definition of 'entirely'
The Conservative policy is for all inherited wealth over £1m to be taxed. Contrary to Labour proganda, this policy is designed to ensure that millionaires, and only millionaires, pay inheritance tax.
We simply believe that the poor bloody middle classes - hugely overtaxed by Brown - shouldn't lose their houses when the head of the last parent dies.
The government takes a big chunk of your money whether you like it or not - how it is dressed up is not particularly relevant (other than to prevent riots by making the gloss as plausible as possible). VAT on fuel duty is a rather bizarre concept, but then so is VAT full stop.
Simplification is the most important aspect - so the overhead on tax collection is as low as possible and we don't waste money on more public sector 'non-jobs'.
The government should set out its spending which should get some kind of consensus and then the fairest way of paying for it should be implemented.
The problem we have is that Labour want to spend 'as much as possible' so want to raise 'as much as possible' - there is no consensus for this approach (it is purely a tool of the left) - it means tax is not for anything in particular it is just to give the government more power. Also the use of taxation to implement social policy (taxing behaviours) this is simply wrong - but has been an effective way of raising 'as much as possible' by getting the support of specific special interest groups who have a vested interest in controlling/attacking others (the victims of a particular tax).
I don't care how the government dress it up, just give me the bill and I will choose whether to pay it or go to jail for non-payment.
As it happens I am launching a new company for a new venture - Browns stupid taxation complexities means that if I run the new venture through an existing company then I would pay over 50% tax on the profits - and could end up paying over 100% (yes for every pound I make I would have to hand over more than a pound to the treasury - and not in bands, over a pound for every single pound of profit made by the venture!)). So I have the overhead of a new company registration, accountants fees etc... which creates nothing it just destroys wealth and is a massive drag on new business creation (well done Gordon, you moron). Of course I won't be employing any members or supporters of the labour party, that would be taking the p*ss.
No that is just unfair, but moreover a disincentive to actually do well.
When I saw the title of this piece I wondered whether George Osborne was proposing a single, flat rate of income tax. But he isn't. He is proposing to raise the threshold of inheritance tax. Funnily enough, the present bunch of idiots have raised the threshold too, from time to time. Have they refused to embrace progressive taxation?
Th usual 'progressive' tax is one that removes more tax from one who earns more than one who earns less in order to fund the provision of public services for all. (Let's not go into here the availability of better services being bought from the private sector if you have more money available and can fund choices because that raises issues of why public/private performance levels are so widely different.)
Inheritance tax as we currently define it is not based on income but on the ownership of assets which usually - and there will be some exceptions - have been acquired using after-tax income. By defining 'wealth' to include the ownership of family houses the picture is distorted.
I live in London so my house may be worth maybe 3 times that of a similar house in Harrogate. But the mortgage I pay, the council tax I pay, the costs of public transport and parking meter charges and so on will reflect that variance in house value. Only if my legatees choose to spend any inheritance in a lower cost part of the UK will they be financially 'advantaged' against one from a less expensive area who has lower costs through the period of time in comparison.
There is a proper discussion to be had about taxing the same money twice, and there's no shame in addressing issues that arise.
What is clear to me is that the size of a person's estate usually reflects their endeavours during their working life - and we mustn't get carried away with a few exceptions e.g hereditary landowners - and surely we do want to encourage endeavour and enterprise so that there are opportunities for employment and the wider economic and social good arising from these attributes.
So I'm in favour of reducing inheritance tax as a spur to those who wish to leave something to their spouses/partners and children. If Gordon is in favour as well - as he says he is - we can't both be wrong can we? And if he wants to steal other party's ideas he ought to do so with conviction and not with an opportunistic grasp surely?
A better and more just taxation regime would be to tax inheritance through a tax on the inheritors income. And for goodness' sake don't tell me that that is already in operation - because then there would be triple taxation. And that's just highway robbery!
It's always the "Landed Gent Scumbag" they say will suffer when in fact it's more likely to be your grandparents who have saved all their lives as they won't think about getting in an accountant. LGS will, and if he's an MP probably charge us for doing it!
Sorry but my family come before all else and certainly Brown, Darling and whoever else is next. I pay tax on my earnings and I want to teach my kids the value of money but I would also like to leave them as much help as I can when I go.
In one way the kids have earned the money because it's unlikely I would have been as productive without them. They give me something to strive for and to try and make the place better for them in the future.
And we're being told we don't save enough. Well why should we if HMRC are just going to take it back?? I'd rather burn mine first if that was the case. If my family can't have it then the government certainly aren't.
As for saying it's unearned income, I'd say every penny Mssrs Brown and Co get is pretty much unearned at the moment!!
Mmmm actually isn't benefit money "unearned" as well??? One for you I think Guy...
And you're displaying you're ignorance if you think this only effects people who were born into money. It may not effect you, it certainly won't effect me because of how I choose to live my life but it will effect people who have worked incredibly hard. Concentrate on the one bit of the comment, the house in Epsom, to reel off example after example. Feel free to point out the differences between Labour and Conservatives to the pound, but all I am saying is it is a bit rich to hear this from Will Straw and there is nothing wrong with what the Conservatives are proposing. Its an excuse for a cat fight as far as I'm concerned and that is bad politics.
Feel free to disagree, but if I see something I personally believe is wrong I will say something and if I see someone like Will Straw saying it, I'll say it a little louder because he won't have the concerns that face the people who really make a difference in this country. Consider for one moment that an 86 year old man dies. His wife of 84 has lived in the house all her life, no mortgage, but the house is worth a good few quid. The tax man wants his bit and he wants it before she has even come to terms with it. She dies a couple of years later and guess what, the tax man comes a knocking to her kids for a few quid more. Thats alright is it? Thats your idea of a fair and equal society?
As this discussion is focusing on the transfer of wealth to children, it's worth pointing out that the overhwelming majority of cases will involve couples and so the effective nil band rate for them is £650,000.
Basically the difference between the 2 parties is as follows -
Under a Labour government, anyone inherting £1,000,000 would receive 'only' £860,000 but under a Tory government they'd get the full amount.
Personally I think there are bigger issues to deal with then manning the barricades for those people who only get £860,000 through the lucky sperm lottery.
Yes I do, I do think that if I pass my experience, house, belongings, money, work placement, lifestyle onto my family and children that no one else has any say on that.
If I buy my house then no one is being done out of anything as they could have bought it if they had wanted and been able. The family on the housing estate in north London is not done down by my owning a home in Surrey and I won't ever support a system that taxes me simply because I've worked to be able to live in a nice place and move in a professional circle that benefits my kids.
Equally, you try and prevent me from passing on my wealth to my kids when I die and I'll find all manner of ways around it to ensure the state gets not a single penny. Both you and I know Chris, that there won't be a thing you can do to stop me either.
I suspect they don't want the "assets", what they want is to be able to keep their family home that they grew up in and not be forced to sell it and wave goodbye to all the family memories they have 5 minutes after the funeral because Mr Suit from the Inland Revenue comes calling with a collection tin.
Inheritance tax is immoral and is just the state taking another bite out of assets that have already been taxed.
I also suspect that the tories have launched their policy knowing full well that the next generation who pass assests on are aware they are sitting on high property prices. This generation doesn't regard itself as mega-rich and will likely support whichever party allows them to go to their end not worrying about the legacy they leave their family.
I work for me and my family, not you, not the familiy down the road on the estate and not Gordon Brown. Force me into a position where I can't do anything but give my assets to the state upon my death and I seriously would burn every last penny and not leave a damn thing.
That I suspect is the strongly held view of a large number of families and just because you don't agree with them doesn't give you the right to pontificate on what they should or shouldn't do with the wealth they have created through their work and not yours.
If ever there was one policy that shows how bitter, grasping and filled with envy socialists and the Labour party is then it is inheritance tax.
When it comes to inheritance tax I'd say the same thing and more vigorously if the Conservative Party didn't raise the limit or tried to lower it. Its wrong and it is something that should be addressed. We pay taxes throughout our lives into society. We pay tax on our every food item, everything we buy including the fuel to ride us to work, whether personal or public transport, we pay it for the very homes we live in if they are worth a certain amount (and rises are something every government have encouraged) and on top of all that, on top of taxing pensions, we tax people who die and make sure a sizeable chunk goes to the treasury.
Its not enough to take from the living, we must pry the cash from the cold fingers of the dead to make sure we can continue to waste it on failed projects, whether they come from Labour or Conservative politicians. And not content with waiting for the tax, we want it before the corpse is cold! It is immoral!
I'll work hard to leave a legacy for my children as I am sure you will Peter, but inheritance tax isn't about fairness, it is just another way to screw over hard working people. What the hell does it matter to someone worth millions if they have to pay an accountant to be creative? But it matters a damn sight more to someone who's house has gone through the roof through some crazy system and they then hope and pray that they can provide their children, a worthy charity or even the Labour Party with a donation of their lifes work after death.
Save the long words for a day time discussion, inheritance tax is an unfair tax and isn't it Labour's job to remove the unfair? Isn't it Labour's job to ensure everyone has a good chance? What! By prying the cash from the dead hand of a hard worker just to spite the select few who happen to have a few million in the bank and can well afford to distribute the tax to some island in the West Indies to ensure the tax man will never see it?
Why aspire? Why bother to do something bold in society? Why attempt to create those jobs to help everyone have a better life? Why Peter? So the tax man can have a nice big 40% of your estate if it is above £325,000? Do you think for a minute our bold and noble politicians will pay that rate? Or do you think that Will's Dad may have invested a tidy few quid abroad to ensure his son gets a little more than everyone else?
As I say, hypocrits and believe it or not I'm being relatively polite given my strong feelings on this. Feel free to come at me again with even more descriptive words that will have everyone reaching for a dictionary, but banging on about fairness doesn't get you too far when you're advocating the removal of someone's lifetimes work just to pay for a refit in a Parliamentry restaurant.
(MPs count as rich).
Its the professional/middle class who pay it - they have something left, but not enough to fund the avoidance strategies.
It doesn't even count as redistribution - it is just dragging the socially mobile back down... protecting the ruling class from competition from honest industry.
"this is not a half bad policy. The money will be passed on after death to the next generation who will in turn invest it in property no doubt and pass it on to their children. It is the way it has always been done and it is wrong, very wrong to view someone's death as a reason to grab more tax."
If that's so wrong, then every government for about two hundred years has been very very wrong, because death and estate duties have been a major plank in taxation. No one is removing ALL the money in death duties, just the marginal rate over the threshold, so a three bed in Epsom (if it sold for around 500k i.e. 4 times the average house price) would still give the family around 400k in assets. Is this so unfair?
We have to remember that most estates comprise properties. Now you may say that it's only the hard work of the Epsom house owner that has brought their property to the half million mark, but that's a completely short sighted and fallacious view. Most value of land and property accrues from social investment outside the control of the owner: in physical infrastructure, road, education etc. Taxing less than half over a threshold that only a fraction of the population will ever cross is hardly an unfair policy, especially if that money is spent on more social infrastructure.
And what's this rubbish about creating dynasties? Are we really in the imaginary realm that we're all going to be Murdochs (or Straws?). And much more importantly Bill, do you never pay your taxes in a dutiful sense knowing that this will ensure better education, health, policing and defence for the community at large? When did Labour supporters become so atavistically narrow minded?
I want my kids to live in a fairer, healthier, happier society, with less poverty and inequality, and hence less crime and ignorance and fear. Of course, I could try to squirrel away every penny in Lichtenstein, but actually I think they will be much better off in the kind of society where people provide for the sick, aged, handicapped or impoverished, rather than fall into the kind of social disunity I've seen in the states - living in privately guarded compounds, driven around in armour plated SUVs, never knowing whole swathes of their city because they've been abandoned to the creed of tribal genetic selfishness you seem to be promoting, which would lead us all back in the dark ages.
Sorry. I love my kids just as much as anyone. Perhaps I just have a better vision for their future than dynastic succession of winner takes all.
I couldn't agree more Bill, my slighty ruder version of that didn't get published so I can only agree. Its very bizarre that MPs can now leave office as millionaires and a lovely property portfolio. Its long been a criticism of priviledged tories having plenty before they arrive but the Labour ones all seem to leave with bucketloads of our cash.
So we tax people while they're working, we then tax the very pensions they work hard to build up and then we tax the total of their assets when they die? So you're all for the two certain things in life - death and taxes?
I may dislike the Conservatives for reasons I won't go into, but this is not a half bad policy. The money will be passed on after death to the next generation who will in turn invest it in property no doubt and pass it on to their children. It is the way it has always been done and it is wrong, very wrong to view someone's death as a reason to grab more tax. They are relieving not the really rich, they are relieving the ordinary people who aspire to give their children money after they die and they've not been given it, they have worked damned hard for it. How much is a 3 bed in Epsom worth these days or is that a little out of your area of expertise?
What happens when Jack goes? I presume you'll ensure his estate is returned to the treasury that helped him build it? Think about this seriously for a second. You're lecturing everyone from a position of priveledge without a single bit of irony. Do you really expect the ordinary man, and this case that happens to be me, to believe your sincerity when we know the level of inheritance you'll be getting and the lengths your family will make to ensure that you get the absolute maximum whilst using your political dynasty to ensure the minimum tax is paid?
Hypocritical? Doesn't even begin to describe it Will, it really doesn't.
You will glean that I don't know what I'm writing about. I strongly suspect that you don't either.
Your comment about Gove is a non sequitur. Since when has an opinion published in a book been the basis for a future governments foreign policy?
Labour tax people the poor more and also the poor receive fewer benefits than the last Tory administration.
So that's Labour's definition of 'progressive'.
Both parties are going to have to increase taxation and cut spending to make up the unprecedented deficit.
Inheritance Tax is seen as 'unjust' as a money-grabbing State taking money from the dead whilst their survivors grieve.
So unjust that Labour immediately increased the threshold and bottled a general election.
Let's not forget Labour "progressive" credentials:
"1.1 million low-income households remain worse-off by up to £112 a year as a result of the scrapping of the 10p starting rate of income tax"
Brown said he would give them an easy out so they just waited until he made them the best deal they thought they could get.
I really don't understand why the cuddly-wuddly left can't see why people would rather give their money to their own family than to the state so they can **** it up the wall (how much money did the socialist Michael Martin waste on his council house? £1,700,000 wasn't it?) it truely is not rocket science, Chris. £3billion really is peanuts in an era of bank bail-outs and permawar.
How long does it take to sort out a company that's gone insolvent acceidentally - 3 years? How much do ordinary creditors end up with - 3 p in the pound? Then again, I bank with Natwest so maybe not so good an idea.
I agree with that, but unfortunately you on the Right appear to think that unearned income from privilege should go entirely untaxed.
I have a question for you.
If we should not tax earned income, and should not tax unearned income, then what should we tax?
Perhaps we on the right think "progressive" means building a system where aspiration and work is rewaded rather than penailsed through high levels of taxation?
I do find it hilarious that there are so many on the left who think anyone arguing that taking people's money away from them is wrong are somehow deeply flawed and immoral individuals.
Inheritance tax is a deeply unpleasant tax. Just as children and family are facing the terrible loss of family the tax man comes calling to take a huge share and often cause the family home to be sold. A person's wealth has already been taxed throughout life. It should not be taxed again upon death.
Personally I'd rather take all my wealth and have it cremated with me rather than leave it to the taxman and people who have done nothing to earn it in the first place. Fortunately there are plenty of methods to ensure you don't have to pay a penny in inheritance tax, so all the Tories are doing is reducing the need for the well off and savvy to spend money on accountants to avoid paying a penny.
I doubt that those on the left will understand at all, so get ready for wailing and moralising par excellence about those terrible Tories who believe people shuold be able to keep the wealth they have earned.
In 'doing it for my friends' unity
MA
Spending far more than you raise in taxation and plunging the country into generational levels of debt and public spending deficits.