Reply to: FFS1

[eek]

No one understands IHT and how few people would actually be impacted by it.

hence, it’s an evil demon that a Tory government can use to put the fear of tax into people and fool them into voting Tory.

if Hunt and co really do abolish it then we will know they know they’ve lost the next election.

Abolishing IHT is far better used as an imaginary carrot to encourage you to vote Tory than a real implemented one.

[SimonMac]

It won't though. Those who currently care about IHT are already voting and will always vote Tory. If the economy was ticking along then sure, the temporarily embarrassed millionaires would be all for it.

There are countless other taxes that could be cut that would actually get votes. Going into an election waving 'look IHT down, we are party of lowering tax!' is a wide open goal for Labour to just start reading off taxes that impact everyone, council tax, income tax etc.

Problem is those who are on the cusp on IHT, house prices taking them into the realm of the someone who might care about IHT and are exactly the type of people the Tories want to attract with a last throw of the dice before a GE

[malvolio]

Raising the individual person allowances instead, based on number of children (Child benefit linked) would help as it can't be fiddled and costs no extra to administer.

Don't be silly. Any change to such things will require a whole new department to operate it. Plus diversity support. Plus performance measurement teams. Plus HR and payroll teams. Plus PR and Communications teams...

It's what the Civil Service does.

[Gibbon]

I want benefits topping up wages to stop. Now is the time to do it while supermarkets etc are screwing the public.

Raising the individual person allowances instead, based on number of children (Child benefit linked) would help as it can't be fiddled and costs no extra to administer.

[SueEllen]

Not sure if you remember the film the big monty? They used to put long term unemployed on courses to learn how to read/write and apply for jobs not least because it kept them out of trouble and stopped them working illegally regularly. Similarly those on a Zoom call 8am-6pm M-F would prevent them from working elsewhere and allow the people that need help to get it.

And the winners were the private course providers.

Also putting someone on a zoom call between 8am-6pm or even making them attending a course providers site doesn't stop someone working later that evening.

[vetran]

I agree that work should pay enough to not need benefits. I don't think Kunt is really going after in work benefits, although they will probably suffer too. He seems to be gunning for out of work benefits where it is far harder to determine the genuine from the grifters.

If tax payers are subsidising Big Burger Co etc.so they can declare profits abroad when they don't pay a living wage, that can stop. The big chains won't pull out of UK but it will force them to compete on a level playing field with the local cafe. I want benefits topping up wages to stop. Now is the time to do it while supermarkets etc are screwing the public.

Not sure if you remember the film the big monty? They used to put long term unemployed on courses to learn how to read/write and apply for jobs not least because it kept them out of trouble and stopped them working illegally regularly. Similarly those on a Zoom call 8am-6pm M-F would prevent them from working elsewhere and allow the people that need help to get it.

[JustKeepSwimming]

Benefits are a big part of the drain on the economy including Gordon B'Ruin's cute idea to subsidise large multination's pay. Lift the minimum wage.

There are perfectly healthy people for whom benefits are a life style choice, some fall into it due to circumstances beyond their control, but its comfortable and it becomes generational. Applying sensible pressure to those makes a lot of sense.

Keeping those with health issues mobile is wise, the closure of Remploy was a scandal.

I agree that work should pay enough to not need benefits. I don't think Kunt is really going after in work benefits, although they will probably suffer too. He seems to be gunning for out of work benefits where it is far harder to determine the genuine from the grifters.

[jamesbrown]

Virtually the whole of society pays tax every time they buy most goods or services. I guess you mean income-related tax, in which case I agree, it'd be nice for people to be put in the position where they could comfortably afford an acceptable standard of living as well as feeling that they're "doing their bit" paying income tax. I won't hold my breath on that one, even if Labour get in at the next GE; capitalism and big business have too much of a stranglehold on the country, especially the mainstream media.

Indeed, which is why I went on to say this:

Having a large cross-section of society pay no (income) tax at all isn't conducive to a good discussion about trade-offs between tax and spend (in which the largest number of people have a stake).

I have no problem with a progressive increase in the minimum wage for example, which means that goods and services will become more expensive for everyone.

[vetran]

Now mumblings about cuts to income tax and national insurance. Decision based on the general 'WTF you doing idiots' response to the IHT cut reports? Or being used as a carrot the push IHT cuts through.

Regardless, continued message seems to be a harsh assault on benefits.

Deep down I am for the notion that there is an endpoint to benefits, ie, the wilfully lazy should reach a point where there is no more support. I believe people have the right to endgame themselves, and I think that extends to endgame by apathy. I'm not sure I trust Government to be able to get the line right. My Mother just made pension age, but is arguably disabled and for many years would struggle to find suitable work if needed. The family made life decisions that allowed us to manage. If it wasn't for those decisions and it was 10-15 years ago would I trust the Government not to sentence her to abject poverty?

Benefits are a big part of the drain on the economy including Gordon B'Ruin's cute idea to subsidise large multination's pay. Lift the minimum wage.

There are perfectly healthy people for whom benefits are a life style choice, some fall into it due to circumstances beyond their control, but its comfortable and it becomes generational. Applying sensible pressure to those makes a lot of sense.

Keeping those with health issues mobile is wise, the closure of Remploy was a scandal.

[JustKeepSwimming]

Now mumblings about cuts to income tax and national insurance. Decision based on the general 'WTF you doing idiots' response to the IHT cut reports? Or being used as a carrot the push IHT cuts through.

Regardless, continued message seems to be a harsh assault on benefits.

Deep down I am for the notion that there is an endpoint to benefits, ie, the wilfully lazy should reach a point where there is no more support. I believe people have the right to endgame themselves, and I think that extends to endgame by apathy. I'm not sure I trust Government to be able to get the line right. My Mother just made pension age, but is arguably disabled and for many years would struggle to find suitable work if needed. The family made life decisions that allowed us to manage. If it wasn't for those decisions and it was 10-15 years ago would I trust the Government not to sentence her to abject poverty?

[vetran]

Seems the new wheeze is to stop benefits after 6 months of not finding work effectively. That won't be abused like sanctions will it?

[Snooky]

I think it's good for a broad cross-section of society to pay some tax

Virtually the whole of society pays tax every time they buy most goods or services. I guess you mean income-related tax, in which case I agree, it'd be nice for people to be put in the position where they could comfortably afford an acceptable standard of living as well as feeling that they're "doing their bit" paying income tax. I won't hold my breath on that one, even if Labour get in at the next GE; capitalism and big business have too much of a stranglehold on the country, especially the mainstream media.

[JustKeepSwimming]

Carrying on the nuTory tradition of briefing the media prior to the House.

Halving the IHT rate to 20%. Current IHT is £7bn a year, so £3.5bn cut?

How can we afford that? Well Kunt has a cunning idea. Instead of using September's inflation rate to determine changes to benefits, as is the established process, he will just use the lower October rate, saving £3bn.

[vetran]

Then again a married coupe get £350k each exemption from IHT for their estate (which des not include pensions pots) plus £175k each tax allowance, meaning a shade over £1m before IHT is due. It also rolls over if one partner dies first (not all that unusual). Outside the vastly over=inflated bubble of Greater London, that puts an awful lot of people out of its scope.

However, I'd much rather see a cut in income tax percentage, which would do a lot more good.

Sadly the idiot Hunt is resigning at the end of this parliament, but is clearly too thick to realise that means he can make popular decisions without fear...

Indeed, although £1M is a lot of money for most people. The billions wasted on saving inheritance tax could be spent on so many things that would do good for the country. Its not like the real targets of financial envy will suffer they all have tax advisers that will spank HMRC in court.

For instance

1. Teaching the unemployed & prisoners to read, write and basic skills to encourage them to work and be useful to society.
2. Retraining younger & older people for the new technical economy.
3. Creating a green building boom.
4. Green energy.
5. EV vehicle economy
6. world beating science
7. Xponics food growing
8. AI crime fighting.
9. AI medecine
etc.

[vetran]

Nah when get around to unaliving you it will be your heirs, so it will make no difference to you.

Being a future heir (hopefully long in the future) it will unless they spend our inheritance with wild living in their 70s & 80s.

Our kids will have a similar issue.