Hate to do another Starmer post. But really, why are they so bloody disappointing

Wouldn’t it be capital gains it came under rather than inheritance?

Unless his parents actually bought it and he just pretended he did, I don’t see the issue.

I’m more worried about what happened to the donkeys after his parents died.

I certainly have some issues with Starmer. Him being the first member of his family to have any money and using some of it to buy a field for his disabled mum to keep donkeys in is not one of them.

I watched the first video and am still not clear on what he is supposed to have done. She ranted a lot about IHT, and Bridget Philipson’s mother buying her council house under right to buy.

What is the actual mechanism of IHT avoidance that is being talked about here?
He bought something with his own money.
He let his parents use it.
He sold it.
The estate of his parents remained the same.

I think people are confusing this with a gift with reservation of benefit, which is where (for example) a parent gifts a child their house but still lives in it - so the child owns it but the parents use it, which is why I think people are confusing it here. This is something people think might avoid IHT but actually doesn’t.
That doesn’t apply here because the land wasn’t gifted by Starmer’s parents.

Is there some other IHT avoidance that people think is being used?

You're suggesting that he was seeking to avoid paying inheritance tax on land that he himself purchased in the first place?

Sorry, there are plenty of things to criticise Starmer about, but this is clutching at straws.

How is buying anything and letting someone else use it avoiding inheritance tax? His parents didn't buy it, so it shouldn't be part of their estate. My dad has used my car a few times, does that mean I should pay IHT on it if he dies? What a bizarre allegation.

It has been mentioned before on other KS threads. Keir Starmer and his Labour party are more than a disappointment. They’re an embarrassment!

Resign Sir Kier - From Donkey Field to Dirty Deal Keir’s £295k Loophole - Starmer Exposed. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dDu5umA1Vbg

Rachel Theives Says Judge Her On Her Record. We Have. The 3 R's Rachel Reeves Resign
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OPtr8TvXQFg

What’s wrong with buying an asset letting your parents use it but retaining ownership of it yourself as you’ve paid for it? If i heard a friend did that i wouldn’t give it a second thought.

I had gone off him a bit until the donkey field story. It made me cry. He loved his mum.

Genuinely don’t see any problem with it. If this is the worst thing they can come up with shows he’s doing pretty well!

I liked him but felt let down by his fence sitting on women’s rights and hanging out Rosie duffield to dry.

I feel like this is a non- story. IHT evasion is more likely when your parents sign over the house they live in and carry on living there. The field was always his, he just gave parents use of it. I feel like that’s more akin to buying a house and letting your parents live there.

I'd vote for "a little disappointing" over the other alternatives which are "racist, nasty and fucking shit".

The reason you are disappointed is that you expected better and instead realised that people are people are people. That’s what happens when you berate people for holding conservative values whilst pretending to be socially minded but act in a way that aligns with those conservative values. It’s messy.

Hate to do another Starmer post.

Well just don't then. The forum will be no worse for it. And if you feel the need to start yet another thread on immigration or Reform, don't do that either. We'll manage without.

Strong feel that every time someone tries to make a thing out of his particular story Kier Starmer's personal ratings go up 5%, that vicious abandoned donkey protecting affectionate and loving son.

A total non-story. He bought a field for his nearly immobile mother to use to keep donkeys in and you find that disappointing? He had no way of knowing how much the value would increase when he did so and his parents were far from wealthy so I highly doubt inheritance tax was at the forefront of his mind when dealing with this. I imagine he didn't sign the field over to them or create a trust or whatever as he wanted to keep it simple for them - they had enough to deal with by the sounds of it - so he just told them they could use the field. The Guardian suggests it is the business with Angela Rayner that has made him double-check again that everything was done properly. What an outrage.

So disappointing!!!

You mean like, as just one example, berating the Tory government for supposedly considering cutting WFA - which they never did - and then cutting WFA as soon as Labour entered government?

No hypocrisy there. 🙄

Where is the hypocrisy?

Do what?

I know. Imagine letting his parents use his field for free, what a bastard.

I don’t like Keir Starmer, but this is a total non-story.

I’ll happily leave out ‘woke’. It doesn’t mean much.

But Starmer and Labour are nauseating hypocrites. You can’t sensibly say otherwise.

’Leftie’ isn’t much more than a description that I imagine Labour supporters would happily own.

He bought it with his own money, and let his parents use it? How does that avoid IHT, it was his money to begin with? Not his parents to pass down?

Oh here we go again.

I really can't take anyone seriously who throws terms like that around.

He said on national TV there was no trust created over the land. Is that true?

You don’t say.