If you tend to vote conservative can I ask a few questions - let’s keep it light and respectful!

[Holidayhavanas]

Full disclosure I tend to vote Labour, but I’m really interested to know if you tend to vote for the tories, what is your reasoning behind. the real shortage of qualified public sector workers for example teachers, social workers, police. A health service and education system on it’s knees. Police forces like Manchester and Met in special forces. I think that it’s symptomatic of years of underfunding. I work in the public sector and feel on a daily basis that the country is absolutely screwed. I assume most tory supporters would say it’s down to austerity but I feel it’s ideological cutting back on public funding. I’mgenuinely open to hear other views as I find it so depressing and just hope that it’s something I am missing. Let’s try and keep this respectful 😊

I think IHT needs an overhaul but I agree with it in principle. Applied properly, it would prevent the snowballing of generational wealth which increases the wealth gap. I want a fair society, not one where the overwhelming majority of wealth is owned by the top few %.

Rather than IHT being based on the value of the estate, I would rather it were based on the individual inheritances passed down. E.g. £1,000,000 being passed down to one individual should be taxed differently than £1,000,000 passed down to 10 people as 10 x £100,000.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with leaving money and property to your children/grandchildren in the hopes of making them financially secure. I think the average person leaving a relatively modest estate should be able to do so without attracting IHT at all and that threshold needs to be raised in line with property prices etc nowadays. An average couple leaving an average house and some savings to their three kids shouldn’t be paying tax on that IMO. It’s the vast amounts of generational wealth that compounds to contribute to social inequality that cause the problem and is where I believe IHT should be applied.

Rather than IHT being based on the value of the estate, I would rather it were based on the individual inheritances passed down. E.g. £1,000,000 being passed down to one individual should be taxed differently than £1,000,000 passed down to 10 people as 10 x £100,000.

That wouldn't work though, as only children would be more heavily penalised than larger families which isn't fair either. It would also be very easy to circumvent by spreading it around various family and friends who subsequently transfer the money back to the original recipients.

I don't see individual wealth as the state's to claim. You've paid income tax to contribute to the greater good of society. If you choose to save to leave some money to your kids, that shouldn't be penalised.

There's also other considerations. Your kids may inherit a nice sum, but as a result, the state may not have to cover the cost of care if they go into a nursing home. Or they don't take up state education places or NHS resources. Or they spend the money travelling the world so it doesn't trickle back to the benefit of (your home) society. I don't think it's a clear cut argument.

You've paid income tax to contribute to the greater good of society

You keep saying this but the vast majority of our estate hasn’t been earned by anyone or had any tax paid on it. It exists simply because our house is valued at four times what we paid for it 23 years ago.

Blossomtoes

"You keep saying this but the vast majority of our estate hasn’t been earned by anyone or had any tax paid on it. It exists simply because our house is valued at four times what we paid for it 23 years ago."

Except:

Using RPI inflation, the value of money has halved in the last 23 years, so the true valuation is only twice as much. No tax relief is available for this.

Most people finance their house purchase with a mortgage. At a 4% average interest rate during a 25 year loan you will pay interest of slightly over half the sum originally borrowed. That interest has to be paid out of taxed income and no tax relief is available any more

So your increase in real terms is around 50%, or 2% per year over that 25 year term.

That wouldn't work though, as only children would be more heavily penalised than larger families which isn't fair either.

I would be very comfortable with this and don’t see it as unfair. My belief is that fewer people owning more wealth is harmful to society and taxing individual inheritance “parcels” would help to combat this.

It would also be very easy to circumvent by spreading it around various family and friends who subsequently transfer the money back to the original recipients.

Just a loophole that would need to be closed somehow.

I don't see individual wealth as the state's to claim. You've paid income tax to contribute to the greater good of society. If you choose to save to leave some money to your kids, that shouldn't be penalised.There's also other considerations. Your kids may inherit a nice sum, but as a result, the state may not have to cover the cost of care if they go into a nursing home. Or they don't take up state education places or NHS resources. Or they spend the money travelling the world so it doesn't trickle back to the benefit of (your home) society. I don't think it's a clear cut argument.

None of this undoes the harm of snowballing wealth and the power that accompanies it. I don’t think the elite do tend to contribute much to the greater good of society, actually.

It's a difference in ideology. Your house is worth more than you paid for it. Agreed (and much of that gain is down to luck). But why should the government tax you on that? You believe it's the right thing to do, but I don't share that view.

You've paid for your mortgage and maintenance out of taxed income. Stamp duty is up to 12% of your property price for people that have bought their houses more recently. You have paid some tax on your property one way or another.

If you feel you want to donate some of your property gain to charity, or good causes, there's nothing stopping you doing that. I suspect others may not be quite so generous in the same position.

BTW I've enjoyed discussing different views without it becoming offensive and unpleasant. It's the most respectful debate I've had on MN for a long time and it's been interesting to hear the thoughts of people from different ends of the political spectrum.

So your increase in real terms is around 50%, or 2% per year over that 25 year term

It’s still money we didn’t work for or pay tax on. And of course we’ve had somewhere to live for the last 23 years. Essentially for nothing. As I said, I can’t be too fussed about what happens to my money after I’m dead. I won’t know, will I?

When you say corporations should be taxed properly what do you propose?

Really??

Because the one who has increased taxes to the current level AND the one who has reduced taxes for bankers, no tax for companies like Shell, etc etc

So I’m wondering why we should believe he is going to do the opposite if what he has done so far….

I’d be happy to see ALL companies actually paying the taxes they are supposed to pay to start with. I’m thinking about the likes of Shell, Amazon, Google etc….

Just like seeing ALL individuals are paying their taxes rather than being ‘non domicile’….

There are many (more or less legal) loopholes that could easily be closed but aren’t….

Yes he’s going for 19% to 25% for corporation tax

Truss is not

He’s not doing as well in the polling so it’d be a misstep if he’s just saying it for effect

Maybe he doesn’t want to win. I can’t see that any sane person would, where would you even start cleaning up the mess?

My house is apparently worth eight times more than we bought it for 25 years ago. We have spent approximately £100k on upgrades plus ongoing maintenance costs, to improve it for ourselves. It's a very nice spacious house, in a pleasant location. And the whole postcode has gone up in the world. Now people want lateral space and a garden, and only need to be in London twice a week (which I did for 20 years, 20 years ago), then it stands to reason that my house is worth much more than it was years ago. I could always leave home for a business meeting in London after 10.30 am -- as long as I was away by 0600. Often, I left at 3,30 am to make a 7.30 breakfast meeting, drove home, worked more and resubmitted papers by 5.00 pm. Or I could get home by 11.00 pm on the train. The price of my nice life was occasional very long days. Not whingeing. I had fabulous, interesting work that I loved doing.

Good luck and well done if you can get American companies to cough up. Do you not yet understand that managing taxation liabilities is A GLOBAL INDUSTRY? Saving a company 1% annually pays some very highly paid legal-trained accountants a decent six-figure salary.

Maybe it’s time there was a GLOBAL crackdown on tax evasion.

I believe there has been. Didn't some countries (including the U.K.) recently agree a global minimum tax rate of 15% on the multinationals?

Good luck with that one @Blossomtoes. Sincerely, I suspect you are as likely to find an effective fireguard made from chocolate.

It rings a bell - can you remember if it ever came to anything?

Seemingly agreed in principle but still in draft form

taxfoundation.org/global-tax-agreement/

@XingMing

I thought this was a productive thread so no need for the capitalisation and passive aggressive remarks. Yes I do realise.

The US is suffering just as much as we are. Of course it’s not an easy problem to solve but that’s what governments and international organisations do - attempt to solve global problems. When most political parties realise they have no money left and no way to generate more taxes from Joe Public, and are therefore unelectable, think we might be surprised what they can achieve if sufficiently motivated to do so.

@bluegardenflowers

Completely agree, extreme Left and right meet in the middle,they are no different hence we had terrified members of the Jewish community, hoping that crorybn didn't get in
.

Angela Raynor!.
Absolutely dreadful

BTW I've enjoyed discussing different views without it becoming offensive and unpleasant. It's the most respectful debate I've had on MN for a long time and it's been interesting to hear the thoughts of people from different ends of the political spectrum.

I agree. Its a shame you never get to do this now. Its become so polarised. Social media has a lot to do with it I think.

I agree. It's been an interesting discussion.

And, as a comparison, here's a taste of a post on the most recent thread I was on...

Two possibilities here. People who vote Tory are either stupid, or they are bastards. ie they either don't understand the implications, or do understand and don't care.

This is the tone and type of post I mean too which has created an echo chamber when it comes to politics threads

I’ve been on mn a while and imo it started during pandemic when abuse was aimed at people who felt differently. Then politics threads where it is a poor discussion if not majority view

This thread is first I’ve seen for a long time going against that general vibe and allow real discussion

Not everyone will see it, as pp often quotes, but I’m glad others can.

Asking in a non-goady way ... for those supporting inheritance tax, do you, or are you likely to, have estates that would trigger an meaningful inheritance tax charge due to their value?

My estate is now, if live for another 20 years, i'd assume it would most definitely would be.
The property was left to me and just below the IHT threshold, savings make up the rest.
My DD will inherit the lot, apart from the savings element, i contributed not a penny in tax as the property has gone up in value.

It really is no use people moaning about roads, train fares, NHS, education or foreign aid etc etc if they don't want to pay some tax when they are dead and wont know anything about it.

As i said earlier, i'd like to see inheritances taxed in a more banded way and loopholes changed.