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?

It is if it is so high you can't stay in your house, it's taking away people's property.

A land value tax of between 0.85% and 3% of the value of the property has been suggested, with the 0.85 being the phase-in figure.

Now, based on my house, whether it's 0.85 or 3, I can't pay! (And I do not live in a mansion; a 4-bed 1980s house.) So what happens? I can sell up, but my house may be worth less due to the onerous LVT. Or, what I have seen is the Ultimate Aim, is that the council take a lien on my house and when I drop dead/am forced to sell they scoop it up/take their cut.

@IsabellaLinton If you spent years working for the council, at the same time as believing that taxation is theft, are you saying you willingly received the proceeds of crime every month?

A land value tax of between 0.85% and 3% of the value of the property has been suggested, with the 0.85 being the phase-in figure.

No, those figures were not "suggested". They were part of an academic paper that had no relation to Labour's proposal to look at ways to reform council tax. And that's all they proposed, to look at what might make for a more fair system, at no point did they say they were bringing in a land tax.

I'm forever astounded at what people take to be fact without doing the first bit of research themselves.

Zipee - but do you know when someone has to register a gift of over £3000? I know the executors of a person's will would have to register all gifts made from their estate in the last 7 years that are subject to IHT, but that's not the same thing as being required to record every gift over £3000 you ever make at the time you make it, which could be a massively increased amount of annual paperwork over pople's lifetimes, surely?

It is if it is so high you can't stay in your house, it's taking away people's property.

A land value tax of between 0.85% and 3% of the value of the property has been suggested, with the 0.85 being the phase-in figure.

Now, based on my house, whether it's 0.85 or 3, I can't pay!

Precisely, Irma - it would kill the housing market stone dead and kick hundreds of thousands - millions? - out of their homes. Who exactly has the liquid cash to pay an annual tax on an illiquid asset that they're living in and which generates no income, on top of bills, a mortgage, and all the other taxes they pay?

It's a pretty obvious ploy to deprive people of their property. Why else would the mere mention of a 'land tax' send the Corbynites into raptures?

That's why the powers that be are discouraging us from using cash. Everything else is traceable

Just no no no as it always hits the people in the middle not the very wealthy

The USA and Australia operate forms of land taxes.

Seems to be ok there.

Again slippery slope fallacies anout the state seizing property btw.

'Slippery slope fallacies', 'strawmen'... you're getting every penny's worth out of that Beginner's Guide to Internet Debating, aren't you?

Awesome - guess there'll be no need to pay it, then?

Fine, stick with Council Tax then - which, because of the way it was set up (based on property values nearly 30 years ago so bears no relation to current property prices), means that those living in £100,000 homes pay around five times the tax rate of those living in £1 million homes, as a proportion of the property’s value.

Because that's really fair and equitable.

Not really, it was a slippery slope, in fact the depriving people of their property point is a text book example.

Try making your points without glaring logical fallacies?

Nobody who resents paying their taxes has any interest in fairness or equity. They just want to hang on to every penny and fuck everyone else. They’re always the ones with the most money, too.

They just want to hang on to every penny and fuck everyone else.

In my experience, socialists just want to grab every penny they can and fuck the people to whom the money actually belongs. While considering themselves morally superior for their parasitism, of course.

Now, based on my house, whether it's 0.85 or 3, I can't pay! (And I do not live in a mansion; a 4-bed 1980s house.) So what happens? I can sell up, but my house may be worth less due to the onerous LVT. Or, what I have seen is the Ultimate Aim, is that the council take a lien on my house and when I drop dead/am forced to sell they scoop it up/take their cut.

It’s amusing that I misread your username as “ImaLayFear* - would have been apt for this pile of scaremongering shite.

We pay a 6 figure sum in tax every year and don't even use state schools

But all use and in some cases are reliant on public services which are mostly staffed by state educated people. Ambulance paramedics, other NHS staff, firefighters, police officers, people who fix & build roads, take care of parks and public areas, local and national government staff, even the people who work for HMRC - most of these have had their schooling provided by the state. I don't understand how not sending your children to state schools means you don't 'use' state schools. Children are in school for a relatively short amount of their parents' working lives, but we all benefit from the state education system every single day. Does anyone really think this country would benefit from all education being fee-paying?

I think you’re mistaking giving a shit about vulnerable people for moral superiority.

You should try it some time.

I believe in fair taxes. I don’t consider the tax I pay to be unfair, nor do I want the government to “grab” every penny from anyone else, just that they pay their fair share. Interesting point that you consider taxation to be theft but were happy to take the proceeds of that theft, @CendrillonSings.

I do more for those people that I supposedly don't care about than you ever will - simply by paying so much tax already. What I resent is the government trying to screw me out of even more, let alone the next generation as well.

Interesting point that you consider taxation to be theft but were happy to take the proceeds of that theft

What's that? I think you've confused me with someone else.

Actually, my apologies. You’re correct.

I do feel morally superior to people who are more concerned about wealthy offspring having to pay some tax on hundreds of thousands of pounds handed to them for nothing, than they are about kids living below the poverty line because they disapprove of their parents’ choices. I don’t think it’s difficult to be morally superior to those people.

This isn’t like IHT which was problematic at the previous level - lots of people having to sell their family home where they grew up just to pay their IHT bill because that property increased in value. That is a sad situation hitting a lot of people who weren’t wealthy. I have empathy with that.

But this? As an example, a child from wealthy family is given £150k to buy a property, has to pay say 20% on anything over £125k, so that’s £5k tax. No stamp duty to pay any more if it’s a first property and under £500k... I don’t have a violin small enough, I’m afraid.

I have and I apologise, it was another who also regards taxation as theft.

Oh and before you bang on about wealth creation, the wealth is only created because of the society in which it began.

That is partly true, but mostly not.

Imagine government spending cut into two parts, essential spending, which goes on things only government can do, infrastructure, defence, law and order. The second part is social spending. Government takes money from richer people and spends it on poorer people. The money is spent on things that people could buy for themselves, if they had enough money, and government didn't provide it. I reckon two thirds of UK government spending falls into this category.

When people talk about cutting/increasing taxes, they are talking about increasing or decreasing redistribution/social spending. There is no danger of a cut big enough that social spending is reduced to zero and core spending is affected.

It's only core spending that is really necessary for wealth creation. Until the late 1800's in Europe, this was the only spending there was. It's only in the 20th century that social spending really took off as a concept. (I wonder if there could be any correlation with people getting the vote, and voting to have other people's money put in their pocket. I haven't looked into that, it's just an idea...)

There was a functional economy in which some people got rich before social spending was invented, Redistribution is not a prerequisite to have a successful economy with wealthy people.

I do feel morally superior

Told ya. Socialism gives you that warm glow of moral superiority PLUS other people's money at the same time! No wonder people get addicted to it.