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?

@JQbased Socialism You’re so right about how it was in Sweden. I just wanted to add that the system in Sweden 🇸🇪 now have become unsustainable. Councils after council are becoming bankrupt due to a lot more people taking out than contributing. The government is tying itself in knots to find new taxes to add to already huge tax burden who is, if you add tax on earnings and council tax together about 57%

Socialism can only really do well in a sustainable society where everyone is contributing, hence why it did well in Sweden

But Sweden isn’t a socialist state:

Regardless of the perception [that Nordic countries are socialist states], in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.

www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/amp/

@ContinuityError Exactly, It doesn’t function as a socialist state anymore. The problem is that the high taxes remain but not the generous welfare system that once was. You don’t get what you pay for and the working are increasingly paying to keep the ever growing group who is not working, fed, housed and clothed.

BasilTheGreat

The point of the Forbes article is that Sweden was never a socialist state in the true sense - ie very high levels of State control and interference.

@Aligatorsnaps your nationalisation led to inflation point is a post hoc fallacy and ignores the complexity of the situation.

Sweeden and the other Nordic countries operate similar policies to those recommended in the Labour manifesto

This is the problem, no one is campaigning for the socialist state you keep stating they are.

They are campaigning for increased levels of social democracy.

By the way, all OECD economies are social democracies because they all operate socialised policies.

And yet Corbyn still can’t win an election. It’s time he quit and let someone else have a go

Well that’s quite the revisionist view of things isn’t it?

May called a GE when Corbyn hadn’t been leader for long. That GE was supposed to be an easy win for the tories in the hope of increasing their majority so they could push Brexit through at any cost.

Labour were way down in the polls at the start of that process, thanks to a mostly Tory-supporting media calling him unelectable, a word that has stuck and is still parroted by the hard of thinking even now, but it doesn’t reflect reality.

Labour put out a fully costed manifesto backed by leading economists. The tories manifesto was a joke, especially when they realised that one of their main proposed sources of funding alienated their core voters (what a shock!) and did a U-turn.

Labour gained steadily in the polls throughout the campaign, which led to the biggest increase in Labour Party vote share since 1945. By that metric he’s the most successful labour leader since the Second World War.

We almost ended up with a hung parliament, despite many not voting for Corbyn because they believed him to be unelectable. The last GE proved otherwise, without the smear tactics and trying to influence people away from Labour generally.

As it is, the labour and SNP gains have helped to prevent a no deal Brexit so far. Thank god.

Corbyn is not perfect, he’s not the messiah but he is by far the best chance we have of coming out of this current disaster (entirely of the tories making) in one piece.

I have to wonder why so many non-wealthy people unthinkingly accept the arguments of the super-rich owners of tabloids. If Murdoch et al are trying to put people off a particular leader / party, does it not even occur to you to wonder why? If you genuinely believe it’s because Corbyn is incompetent, think harder.

You don’t get what you pay for and the working are increasingly paying to keep the ever growing group who is not working, fed, housed and clothed

Ever-growing group who is not working?

Huh. I mean, the tories insist that more people than ever are in work, so where does this belief come from?

Never mind that those people are on zero hours contracts with no employment rights, and reliant on tax credits to supplement their wealthy employers profits...

The Forbes article is not very good at describing Sweden. Sweden was a socialist country and if you dig deeper you’ll find methods such as forced sterilisation of unwanted people. The mentality of Sweden today is that of an unforgiving society which punish people which don’t conform to the main “common value”. You may find yourself without a job if you’re openly supporting a right wing party for example.

What counts? The £50 my mum gives me at Christmas? The £12k my dads giving me for my wedding?

Mine and DPs parents pulled themselves from utter poverty into being able to help us massively with uni and homes etc... what'll be the tax? 20%? 40%?

Yes, I expect the £12k would form part of that, or at least it should do. It wouldn’t be taxed though, would it, since that large sum of money you’re being given is less than 10% of the amount that would be able to be given tax free and, like IHT and income tax, you’d likely only have to pay tax on the amount over and above £125k

Unless your parents are in a position to give you another £114k or more while they’re still alive, it wouldn’t affect you would it?

And under labour they wouldn’t need to give you so much help because there’d be better funding for education, and more affordable housing.

And what about those young people whose parents work minimum wage jobs, are below the poverty line, and can’t afford to give them money towards weddings, uni and homes? Those people don’t necessarily work less hard than your parents.

You’re saying that your parents have been extremely impoverished in their lives and yet you’re arguing against a tax targeting the very rich, many of whom have not worked hard (or at all) for their wealth.

As for the PP who said that wealthy people don’t do this to avoid IHT, yes they absolutely do. I went to uni with a few wealthy people whose parents do this frequently. Not in old age when they might die soon, but from their kids being 18.

Some of the arguments here are like people panicking about the possibility of global cooling, when we have uncontrolled global warming right now.

Many people have not survived this government. Many more wouldn’t survive another term. I have two disabled children and in support groups I see the dire straits that many parents are in, which is only getting worse. So apologies if I can’t get upset about the prospect of a tax on the very weathy right now.

BasilTheGreat I would disagree that Sweden was ever a socialist country - it has always been pro capitalism but it does redistribute wealth. And therein lies the problem - you have to create wealth to be able to redistribute it and that is what Sweden is struggling with.

Lacking a bit of historical knowledge there? Sweeden was certainly not a socialist country when sterilisation began in 1906 or during the peak years of 1941 to 1944.

Wow there are a lot of people on this thread who think that other people’s hard earned money should be taken and spread around. If you want more money, work for it! Yes there are a few people who get their whole lives paid for by older generations, but most people work hard to get where they are.

Repeat again, no one is campaigning for a totally socialist country.

Its a strawman that you keep using because its easier to argue against than the actual points.

Sweden is not socialist! And doesn't make enough money nowadays to fulfil all the promises it made when it was a relatively small country.

I’m of a generation that was lucky to get a house at 23 I’m now 46. So not really a boomer. This did mean a lot of sacrifice

I intend my inheritance from my parents to go to my children so they can get a chance to buy a house. We live in the south east and it’s the only way they will manage it. House prices here are awful. Wages are shit Unless your very lucky

Labour are not going to take that away from them.

Sweeden is a social democracy and has large socialised policies.

It also operates a budget surplus and has a much lower debt to GDP than the UK.

Yes it's a lovely country, but as the population grows it is finding it harder and harder to manage its policies, according to my aunt anyway!

Wow there are a lot of people on this thread who think that other people’s hard earned money should be taken and spread around. If you want more money, work for it! Yes there are a few people who get their whole lives paid for by older generations, but most people work hard to get where they are.

So you’ve read the whole thread and this is what you’re taking from it?

Wrong. Most of the super rich haven’t worked hard to get where they are, and those who have had significant financial input to enable them to get started in the the first place. Most of the people who work extremely hard will never be in a position to give their child in excess of £125k during their lifetime.

A large proportion of most estates today are made up of increases in property value, which is neither worked for nor taxed.

You’re operating under the fallacy that people who work hardest have the most money, and people who want a lot of money just have to work harder. Have you really managed to reach adulthood without realising this is simply not true?

Would you want to live in this country as it stands now as a disabled person, a homeless person, a person on minimum wage, a carer for a family member, a parent of disabled children? Any of those things could happen to you regardless of how hard you work, it’s staggering that people are more inclined to defend the wealth of the super rich than the rights of the most vulnerable in society, especially given that we are all more likely to end up in the latter than the former group.

"According to my aunt anyway".

Righto.

I intend my inheritance from my parents to go to my children so they can get a chance to buy a house. We live in the south east and it’s the only way they will manage it. House prices here are awful. Wages are shit Unless your very lucky

Labour are not going to take that away from them

1. Again, this is not Labour policy
2. How would this change take away your children’s inheritance? At worst they’d pay tax on any amount over £125k which they haven’t earned or worked for.

Ha! She lives there. So not a total randomer.

But then again individuals opinions aren't the same as facts.

Sweeden operates a budget surplus and has much lower debt to GDP than the UK. So maybe it can afford its policies?

which they haven’t earned or worked for

Good, let's tax benefits then. People haven't earned or worked for thise either.

I din’t say Sweden is socialist today. It has retained a socialist taxation system and a socialist mindset among was amounts of the population. It’s really bad, you’re paying huge amounts of taxes and not getting what you’re paying for. And now when they need more money the only thing they can think of is to raise taxes even more. Horrible system whatever you call it.