Jeremy Corbyn wants to impose lifetime gift limits on children of £125,000

[ForTheLoveOfDoughnuts]

So we pay tax on what we earn. What we buy. And now this.. what's the point of working hard to help out our kids, for this to even be considered. Or AIBU?

For private schools only 7 percent of those attending (nationwide) get support, only one percent get a full ride.

More than half pay more than 50 percent of the fee, which on average is 18k per year, although prep schools are often much cheaper.

his would be taken to help those who are poorer.

'Taken'? Stolen would be more accurate.

Nope, the first time business rates were even raised in this debate was you trying to get out of the fact that you confused a tax on turnover with a tax on profit with "I asked a question on how you could tax turnover as a replacement for business rates which was a suggestion by another poster".

Wealth creation happens by business. It does not happen by Government. Government spends the money earned by business that comes in the tax bill.

Anyway, I have wasted far to much time trying to explain simple economics to you and I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent so I am going to sign off now.

@Fibbke, could you explain to me how bodies like public schools (which are essentially businesses) that don’t pay the same taxes as commercial organisations aren’t being subsidised?

Ordinary farmers do avoid tax . Why do you think machinery sales go through the roof in March each year?
The rich are buying agricultural land because they can get away without paying inheritance tax on it.
The only way to make the system fairer is to make the system smaller. There are too many people .

My dd gets a hell of a lot of support, her school is a charity and along with her many couldn't have the opportunity if it wasn't for means tested government financial support.
Mine is almost a free ride.

You are talklng about scholarships, not bursaries. Millfield give 50 to 100% bursaries.

Means tested Millfield bursaries for are available to those on scholarships (some of which attract a fee reduction up to 50%), or to those pupils whose situations change once they have completed at least a full year at the school.

There are only "limited" bursaries available to children who don't meet the scholarship criteria.

@aligatorsnaps. Mumnymiester mentioned it at 17.09 yesterday.
Wrong again. Must get tiring.

No business creates wealth on its own, it is facilated and supported by government and the society created by governments.

You are funny.

Try harder.

Tax payers don't subsidise companies or charities that dont pay VAT confused

Honestly no wonder politics is in such a mess when the general public believe such bollocks

If Business A pays less tax than they otherwise would due to tax breaks etc, then other taxpayers have to make up the shortfall or we have lower public spending.... unless that tax break results in higher overall tax from that sector, which in the case of private schools isn't the case.

Quite surprised you cannot appreciate that, instead you resort to insults.

The Uk givernment gives businesses subsidies, tax breaks to, or gives support via procurement policies to the tune of 95bn a year. This is significantly higher tha the level of corporation tax paid.

How many children going to Milfield got these bursaries? bearing in mind even a 50% reduction in fees, results in payments of around 4k per term, per child - 6k if boarding

All i saw on the Milfield website is about Scholarships, no mention of bursaries, which is why i didn't draw that distinction, also nothing about 100% reductions.

Tax breaks can be an important part of fiscal policy, can encourage saving and/or increase tax take, don't see any advantage to the general public over giving them to private schools

Just to enforce my point:

mummymeister Sun 16-Jun-19 17:09:18
Iggly - some sensible alternatives:

1. Reform the business rates system. If you must have a tax on doing business then it shouldnt be based on floor area but annual turnover. This would also bring in the big companies like Amazon as well as the low space tech companies and those that have no office space but lots of work from home.

Ok i did miss that. It didn't pop up on my search. It's still nothing to do with your points as you would have referenced it in one of your posts. But you didn't. Instead you decided to try and pretend that you were talking about business rates when you had confused a tax on turnover with a tax on profit. Again showing a complete lack of knowledge.

So don't troll me with a proverbial head tilt and tinkly laugh with comments like "you are funny". Just cause you look down on everyone doesn’t mean they are looking up to you.

jasjas1973

Millfield School scholarship and bursary policy:

millfieldschool.com/sites/default/files/downloads/Senior/About_Us/School_policies/Scholarships_and_Bursaries_Policy_January_2019.pdf

If small business owners have this sort of money laying about, perhaps they should pay their staff more so they don't have to rely on the state to top up their wages?

What are you talking about @jasjas1973? What's with the bizarre assumption that small businesses and sole traders - the kinds of people mummymeister is proposing taxing more - have "loads of money lying about"?

@Aligatorsnaps again you are wrong. My point was in response to mummmeister, which is why I said you couldnt possibly tax turnover and profits. I did not need this explained to me.

You are funny, strutting around lile you are some kind of intellectual and erroneously attacking me.

@Aligatorsnaps if you lool carefully my post appears two posts below mummymiesters, I have said all along what it was in response to.

Your story has changed.

Try harder.

If small business owners have this sort of money laying about, perhaps they should pay their staff more so they don't have to rely on the state to top up their wages?

You do realise that when business owners read this kind of stuff, their inclination is to move whatever they can offshore?

There are too many people .

The tax system would not be simpler with fewer people.

The UK population is aging. We need young people to share the tax burden and actually do the jobs that enable our standard of living.

www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniedenning/2019/02/22/why-amazon-pays-no-corporate-taxes/#686c2ea154d5

Interesting article on Amazon and tax.

I'm sure other points of view are available, but it does illustrate why tax policy isn't simple.

I'm not a fan of Corbyn personally - I would rather somebody else was leading the Labour Party. However, shifting taxation away from income and towards capital is hardly radical. Successive governments have quietly failed to raise the IHT threshold for years.

The more complicated the tax system, the more it advantages the wealthy, because they are the ones who know and exploit the loopholes, lobby the politicians, and who negotiate the exemptions. This country makes little of any use to anyone these days - we import that stuff from countries we don't mind being polluted by their manufacturing industries. The UK makes most of its money on advising the hugely wealthy how to make more money by playing with other people's money on the money markets, how to hide their money and how to minimise their tax bills. We're great at providing those sorts of services. Chances of getting a fair taxation system out of the UK are pretty minimal, therefore.

The more complicated the tax system, the more it advantages the wealthy

However complications are generally introduced to make taxation more fair and close loop holes.

People have mentioned farmers avoiding tax, but there are tax exemptions for agricultural land (which generally allow tax to be deferred rather than avoided completely) because we want farms to continue to produce food without taking a cashflow hit just because the business has changed hands. That creates a loop hole that can be exploited, but then closing the loop hole leads to more regulations.

This is not official Labour policy.
If it were I don't think I could get that stirred up about it.
There is real suffering out there at the moment. I live in a very deprived coastal town. There are working families here left with £50 a month to feed their families since the introduction of universal credit.
I wish more people got stirred up about that!!

merrymouse - and therein lies the irony. Making things so complicated even HMRC seems to get them wrong half the time does not end up making them more fair, because only the wealthy can afford to understand them better than the inadequately resourced HMRC. Result being, only the wealthy are guaranteed to benefit from the "fairness" of it, plus they can afford to run rings around HMRC, too, and benefit from the unfairness of that. That's a fairly inevitable result of huge inequalities - you can't tax them away. You can't have fairness by anyone's standards if a minuscule elite hold the vast majority of the earth's wealth and enjoy watching the majority fighting over how to distribute the dregs and how to tax them.