What are the Tories thinking with insane £1,000,000 inheritance tax threshold proposal for family homes?

[Figmentofmyimagination]

It's almost as if they have completely lost their way.

the unearned argument irks me, alot of things are unearned.

Why does it irk you?

Do you agree we need to get tax from somewhere?

A pp spoke about not leaving money to the sodding government...

But - that's the money for health, welfare, education, pensions, defense.....

A pp spoke about not leaving money to the sodding government...

But - that's the money for health, welfare, education, pensions, defense.....
social housing etc

That is what tax is for.

Just another pie-in-the-sky unfunded promise from the Tories, as if they haven't buggered up the economy enough already, despite the drivel they come out with that things are getting better. Problem is, Gidiot is saying they'll reveal their spending plans after the election so that probably means they don't have a clue what they're doing. Labour's Chuka Umunna, despite asserting that he was merely the shadow business secretary, was able to give concise, informative answers re his party's budget and spending. Tories just repeat ad nauseum (with a glazed expression) that they have a clear economic plan without ever hinting at what it might actually be.

Oh, and in response to the belief upthread that benefits are just free money, in almost all cases they are merely insurance payments - the benefactor has paid into the National Insurance scheme (clue's in the name) and is cashing in on their policy as anyone would do with any insurance scheme they're a member of. HTH.

yes but tax those who have large property portfolios or overseas investment buyers not the person who lives in their home with a moderate income

also the companies like Amazon and Starbucks

I think woodhill's problem is that he/she thinks buying is morally superior to renting.

Woodhill, remembering that the average age of today's first time buyer is 38 and momentarily attempting to put yourself in their shoes, if you could choose, would you choose the "responsibility" of a mortgage, or the precariousness, insecurity and general inability to make alterations etc of a tenant? And what about the "responsibility" of a tenant with children?

And ok so mortgages can go up and down (but we've been enjoying a bit of a holiday just lately as homeowners haven't we).

But humour me with your empathy-ometer just a little longer and ask yourself why the government has just had to legislate against revenge evictions? Yes. These are indeed evictions by private landlords of tenants who complain, for example, about inadequate sanitation. Why do you think even a Tory led coalition government was persuaded that this legislation was necessary?

"Responsibility" my arse - sorry. Some people on this thread have no clue about what is going on around them. It is a disgrace.

not the person who lives in their home with a moderate income

But in the vast majority of cases the person who actually lived in the home won't be taxed on account of them being dead. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

I'm really hoping to leave my home after death. I don't go in for all this staying behind to haunt people nonsense.

I think it is better to buy if you can but understand that it is not easy in today's climate. There may be low interest rates now but it wasn't always the case.

tbh think alot of people's properties will be sold to fund nursing care in their old age but I don't agree with those in the SE and .London being penalised for their moderate terraced house say because of price inflation

I don't stand to benefit from IHT either way, but i do think that a person should be free to dispose of an asset on death in any way they see fit, without having to hand over a slice to the government. It's their asset and their capital - yes the owner is dead, but surely it is reasonable to allow them to gift it to surviving relatives or the local dogs home if that is their wish?

I am an small "c" conservative/small state sympathiser, which is perhaps why I am not in favour of this, even though I would dearly love even 60% of a slice of cash that size!

The person can dispose of it as they see fir The recipient though has to pay tax on it as it is essentially a windfall It is fair

My basic philosophy is that the individual is better looking after their own money and their own families than giving control of it to the state.
This is the basis of 'conservatism'- a small state.

The opposite is socialism where the state is large and the individual is small.

And that doesn't mean conservatives should not look after the poor and the disabled. It just means they have to create and economy where taxation from other aspects of the economy flourish and they fill their coffers that way.

tell me, pinkfrocks, how many street lamps have you bought? Do you own your personal fire engine, university and frigate? If you are burgled when the policeman you hired is off duty, do you wait for him to start work the next day?

yy to PlgletJohn's comment

It just means they have to create and economy where taxation from other aspects of the economy flourish and they fill their coffers that way

Right, so you agree we need tax. So why is IT unfair as compared to other taxes. Income tax for example. I really don't understand why someone can't answer this.

As I said, I'd quite like to use all of the money I've earnt for myself in the same way that people want to pass everything down. But how can it work like that of we need to raise taxes?

Ha ha pink frocks. That old myth of the small state. I think not. Conservatives adore state regulation and intervention - it takes a very strong interventionist state to secure the "right" sort of "freedom".

Some recent examples of the not so small state include:

• the most restrictive industrial action laws in the developed world - hobbling one side of the employment relationship;
• massive tax transfers to private landlords
• colossal tax transfers to employers who refuse to pay a living wage
• and the mother of state intervention - owning our banks
• or how about intervening to deliberately scupper the profitable west coast mainline just because it was in public ownership

State intervention is about choices and values. It's not about "how much" regulation but about its quality and the sort of society it produces.