Inheirtance tax of 10%

You’re confusing the wealthy with people who are high paid. They’re not the same. The wealthy don’t pay much or any income tax.

For example Rishi Sunak paid a total UK tax bill of £508,308 on an income of £2.2 million for the 2022/23 tax year. This resulted in an overall effective tax rate of 22.8%, as the majority of his earnings came from capital gains on a US-based investment fund, which is taxed at a lower rate than standard income.

This.

Plus Labour left them with a massive amount of PFI debt. My local hospital’s PFI development opened in 2010, but the operational and maintenance contract doesn’t finish until 2043. The actual cost of the development is £148 million, but it will have cost the taxpayer £766 million by 2043.

And didn't Milliband say he'd keep with Austerity in his GE electioneering!

indeed - top 1% contribute about 30% of tax revenue.

I think most on MN have no clue how the ultra wealthy behave but just like to think they're all evil wankers. Despite them paying for the majority of public services.

The state audits itself via the NAO and is often found to be doing a shite job. Maybe we should start asking why rather than just expect more tax.

I'm not sure why you keep using Cameron's government as an example of a tory government. They just carried on from where Blair left off but with a shit economy.

How does that work? There would have to be a personal allowance just as there is with income tax.

I’ve worked in tax for a long time for HNWs (and some UHNW/UUHNWs) and have never known anyone to go to vast lengths to get out of IHT. There are some people that are prepared to but it’s totally wrong of you to say most people do. There are a lot of rich people that pay A LOT of tax to HMRC.

A flat rate for all will penalise many Burnham supporters who have struggled to buy a modest home, it could, and should, be spun as the poorer are subsidising those with grander homes.

Many people born in the early 1960s have final salary pensions which are paying out generous lump sums which are now being passed down to avoid IHT later if unspent. You don't have to downsize to do this.

More than you’d think. Suffice it to say that I’m pleased our seven years expired last summer.

It's great for your children that you did this, but it's not the norm. Most don't.

Exactly. The state needs money to pay for public services. It has to come from somewhere.

That is exactly what I did. When I was 61 (DC 24 and 33) I downsized to a 1 bed future proof bungalow and have given both DC lump sums when they have needed it since then. If the government scrap the seven year rule and I die in the next six years those gifts will be added to my estate and taxed.

Why should anyone, once you've died?Nobody is suggesting 100% inheritance tax... All income (over the very low minimum) is taxed, and this is unearned income for the recipient.

I really don't think it is debt fueled GDP growth, and even if it is, surely that's a good thing, like buying a house, if we borrow to improve roads and railways and that causes economic growth sure that's a good thing. The key is the level of debt to GDP which is what the markets will consider when assessing our credit rating.

Here's a chart of debt to GDP, which is pretty much flat under labour until the GFC. Even if debt did grow it was supported by growing GDP. Under the Tories it rose significantly (despite austerity) which is no surprise as austerity caused GDP to stagnate, meaning the country had to borrow more to support rising spend on the NHS and state pension.

I genuinely can't think of any way the country was in a better place after 14 years of the Tories. And I can't think of any economist who thinks the last Tory administration was economically good for the country. So like I said "if the Tories are not good for the economy then what are that actually for?"

That's just showing GDP fuelled by debt.

It's not loaded on the middle though. Only 5% of estates are liable for IHT. It's not just the "very poor" who don't pay - it's almost everyone!

This. At the moment, the very rich and the very poor pay no IHT. It’s all loaded on the middle, and we’re getting sick of paying for everything. And I say that as a lifelong labour voter.

Cameron and Osborne put vat up to 20%, gave us Brexit and also the slowest growth in GDP per capita making everyone worse off. The Tories are the ones who make sure we all end up poorer, not Labour. Whereas under Blair the economy boomed, public services were better and taxes were broadly stable.

It's daily mail scaremongering to suggest that labour make everyone except those on benefits poorer. It's simply not true.

There were very high taxes (under labour and conservatives) back in the 1960s, but that's 60 years ago.

As one example - just look at what the Tories did with local government. Cameron and Osborne reduced the central government allocation to local councils by around 50%, that meant that your council tax went up by more than inflation to compensate, and services got worse as they had to cut costs. More potholes, playing fields sold off etc. effectively a stealth tax from the Tories accompanied by gradually worsening public services.

Well, I wish I could be sure that what you say is what everyone does.
There are far too many people who do not pay what they should though.

No-one pays nothing. If you put money in a trust, you pay 6% of the amount in the trust to the government every 10 years. Any money taken as income from the trust is also taxed at the usual UK tax rates. It’s not some kind of tax free piggy bank. If it was, everyone would be doing it.

I don’t disagree but all he’s said for now is a flat 10% so that’s what I’m going off.

Tbh from what I’ve seen I don’t think Burnham has a very good understanding of the economy/finances/taxes.

Which in turn replaced estate duty which was introduced in 1894. It was 80% post war.