To ask if you watched Andy Burnham’s bloody good speech?

[Househunt2026]

As in actually watched it and didn’t just doom scroll the commentary? It was bold and honest and pragmatic and actually made me hopeful that we have someone at the helm with a vision for a better tomorrow who has Britain’s best interests at heart.

The National Care Service is a masterstroke, paid for out of scrapping the triple lock and the very real savings of reducing NHS bills on A&E and hospital beds for elderly who should be in care but have nowhere to go.

Scrapping right to buy and increasing council control of housing, boosting the technical education track for young people, pushing renewables, nuclear and energy sovereignty, public control of key utilities for water to get bills down and reduce pollution, investing in people & getting them back to work, leasehold reform by Christmas and everyone’s energy bill will be reduced by fast tracking decoupling energy prices from global gas pricing and by having no VAT on energy bills by TOMORROW!

You can watch the whole thing here and be directly informed instead of getting your perspective filtered through all the bots and misinformation peddlers online m.youtube.com/watch?v=jyjTT_55Gi0

It makes no difference to a deceased person what happens to their wealth after death.

It makes a huge difference to a person who's still alive and who has agency to adjust their behavior accordingly. I will not try to work anymore or save anymore if I know that my savings will go to the taxman. After a certain age I value my free time more than money. And I can see a lot of people around their 50s doing exactly the same. Retire, transfer everything you can to kids now. If you run out of money later, the state will pick up the tab. This would've been completely different without IHT.

wouldn't diminish your background either, but I don't think our positions are as similar as you suggest. You were fortunate enough to have a home. I was not. That's quite a major difference and influence on our motivations and behaviour. Even if you didn't mean it, framing our positions as similar plays down that difference.

And education wasn't "free". Unlike you, I was just caught by the introduction of tuition fees. My parents also paid taxes towards it, as do I and my family. Calling it good fortune overlooks that it was paid for by workers, and ignores the fact that graduates have traditionally generated more tax for the economy. You say we shouldn't put everything down to privilege, but the rest of your reply leans heavily that way: your own success is put down to luck, and the case for IHT rests on undeserving heirs. So I'm not sure that concession goes quite as far as it seems.

If it doesn't matter to the dead, then why do people make wills? Because they care what happens after they die. It's my money, and it's already been taxed. I should be able to decide whether to spend it all today or leave it for my children to spend. Why should the timeframe I choose dictate whether it's taxed again? I wouldn't object to a modest tax on any genuine windfall gain on my house, after my costs when I sell it. But that's very different from taxing again everything I've already paid tax on.

@BIossomtoes you are correct I will spend it but @1dayatatime is more correct on my behaviour if I am forced to choose between spending it or losing it. So logically, I will use it, by stepping back early from the labour market. I don't have a huge private pension, but I can make it stretch. The Treasury will still collect VAT on what I spend, but that won't replace the PAYE and NI it loses. If I'm looking for investment growth to supplement my income, because I am no longer receiving a full time salary, other countries offer better opportunities. Sure, the UK will get tax on the returns, but most of that money will be funding growth elsewhere. People in my position will travel more, volunteer less and give less in general.

You say the system rewards people who don't "deserve" it, and that it smarts when the taxpayer plugs the gap. I agree, and I'd add it also smarts when it rewards politicians for not doing the right thing and expects taxpayers to keep paying for it. I'd also point you in the direction of William Beveridge, hardly a free-market acolyte:

"The State in organising security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family."

So if we as a country need to go back to core values, I'd argue my mindset is more aligned with the founding principles of the welfare state.

But the actual evidence from behavioural economists suggests that the risk of physical wealth flight is significantly smaller than anti-tax rhetoric suggests: https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/121396/1/IIIWorkingPaper131TaxFlight.pdf

Of course some high profile individuals will migrate. We can all think of headline grabbing “tax exiles”. But in reality, most high-net worth individuals are late-career professionals who have spent decades building deep local networks, and most don’t, in reality want to move and uproot their lives, just to avoid higher taxes.

Agree, it makes a difference. Such a strange argument. People have a will precisely because they care what happens after they die!

I'd stop short of transferring everything to my children or letting the state pick up the tab. But it's a sign of how broken the system is that many on here whose parents have savings just over the limit, or a very modest home, will tell their parents to spend it and let the state pick up the tab. The irony is that it'll be me, them, their children and mine picking up the tab through the state anyway!

I am not certain that’s correct - I can only speak from personal experience.

So, take someone like Mittal leaving. When he goes a team of portfolio managers are either let go, or moved out of the UK - these guys are well compensated. Not only that, but it means they are less willing to invest in the UK, or IPO in the UK etc. There is a multiplier effect.

It’s not just physical presence/domicile, but also jurisdictional skew - i.e. anti UK investment bias.

It’s my current experience.

I agree that a home makes a huge difference, which is why I said similar not the same. The similarity lies in improving our circumstances beyond those into which we were born, and that we gave both drawn conclusions based on our respective journeys that have informed our political positions.
You have spoken about the efforts of the individual and the way in which these can be encouraged and rewarded. I of the contribution made by the state to improving my circumstances.
Beveridge draws the two together neatly.
So we are not so far apart in the what. Which just leaves the how....

I completely understand where you're coming from. But the economic evidence suggests that millionaire tax flight in the UK is far less severe than many people think. I don't know if the link I posted earlier worked...? If not, this one might: The Myth of Millionaire Tax Flight: how place still matters for the rich - LSE

Of course as individuals posting on an open forum, we're all going to be basing our opinions on or personal experiences and perceptions, but when it comes to actual policy making, I do wish our political parties (all of them - because I think both the left and right wing parties have blind spots when it comes to behavioural economics) paid less attention to public perception, and more attention to the actual evidence available.

I think that LSE piece is dated from 2017? Is that correct?

The first one I posted was from 2024, but you didn't seem to be able to open it... Here it is again: Tax flight? Britain’s wealthiest and their attachment to place. Hopefully the link works this time. I find it - and behavioural economics in general - really interesting.

It’s post 2024 GE that is relevant for Labour’s policy impact.

Fair point, but I shared both those particular links because they're independent research, coming at the issue from the perspective of behavioural economics. I suppose what I'm really interested in challenging is this kneejerk assumption that 'if you tax wealthy people they'll move, taking their wealth with them' because I don't believe it to be backed by sufficient economic evidence, and I think adhering to that percieved wisdom too blindly (against the evidence) limits the fiscal levers goverments can pull, in a way which I think is counter productive, when we need to be both investing in infastructure and reducing borrowing.

The LSE is distinctly left-leaning, of course.

I am also cautious about simply relying on data for those who have emigrated. As others have posted, there are other behavioural responses including early retirement, cutting hours, asset disposal, and divestment etc.

All fair points. But isn't it interesting the extent to which we're all interested in behavioural economics when it supports our pre-existing opinions, and sceptical of it when it doesn't? Although I'm sure I'm as guilty of that as anyone!

So, in the interests of stepping away from my own biases for a minute - I liked that speech from Kemi Badenoch more than I've liked anything I've heard from her before. I don't actually agree with her on the inheritence tax issue (I think there's a real risk it will have an unforseen negative impact in stopping older people selling big houses), and I think the Conservatives are in cloud cuckoo land if they think they can make the scale of cuts they are talking about without doing massive damage to our public services. I really, really hope they row back on the kind of punitive welfare cuts they're talking about, and I think she needs to get some of her M.Ps in line and get them to stop the divisive culture wars nonsense.

BUT I think that was the most effectively I've heard any politican skewer Reform and I found it very powerful when she spoke about her Englishness. As an orator, I don't think she has the same range or depth as Andy Burnham, and I think she wasted too much time on mud-slinging, but I do think she's articulate and charismatic, and I think her and the Prime Minister could between them give us a big, proper debate about ideas.

I much prefer listening to Kemi than Burnham. I don’t need that slippery not joining to re-joining and will say whatever in the moment stuff.

Britain loses over half its billionaire wealth in two years: Super-rich worth combined £121bn leave UK | LBC

"Super-rich UK residents worth a total of £121bn have left the country since 2024, according to an analysis of the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

The departures coincide with a series of government measures that clamp down on wealth.

The £121bn figure accounts for more than half of all billionaire wealth in the country."

On this a few OECD countries have tried wealth taxes unsuccessfully and dropped them partly due to capital flight

13 OECD countries have introduced or implemented a broad net wealth tax at some point, and 9 of them subsequently dropped it

Sure, but that’s exactly the kind of one sided reporting I was trying to counter by posting actual research by economists, instead of a news source that people would likely see as biased one way or another, because I could have just as easily have shared this, which interprets the “billionaire exodus” another way, but which people would no doubt have dismissed as, “of course the Guardian would say that”. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/oct/07/apparent-exodus-of-super-rich-suggests-uk-is-no-longer-billionaires-playground

Do you live under a rock?

Do you have anything constructive to say?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Guardian refers to the same Bloomberg analysis that I posted. That £121bn wealth left the country in the last two years.

The research that you posted is two years old and was conducted immediately after Labour came to power.

ETA: re returns - yes, a couple of guys moved here to donate 70m to Reform. Call my cynical but I can see some not entirely personal reasons here. Plus war in Iran helped for a moment, but it can't reverse a fundamental trend.

I'm not neccessarily in favour of a wealth tax, by the way. Although, in principle I am in favour of taxing wealth over taxing work. What I would like to see is the tax code simplifed, capital gains tax brought in line with income tax, and council tax reformed.

I guess my fundamental thing is I'd like to see whoever is in government paying more attention to the evidence on behavioural economics - so, not cutting to the point where you're actually just cost-shifting onto the tax-payer elsewhere and not taxing to the point you stifle growth (I think Kemi Badenoch is right on having NI contributions for young people, for example - and I hope the Chancellor does this).

I do think once you put ideology and party political point scoring aside, there are finanicial levers which could be much more effectively pulled, and that is why I personally would like to see electoral reform and a more consensus driven politics.

What on earth could I possibly say to someone who says immigration has gone down under labour and is no longer an issue worthy of interest? All I can say to you is - I hope you are a bot

That's exactly my point - it includes the same Bloomberg research, but interprets it a different way, for example this:

Arun Advani, director of CenTax, said he was unconcerned about billionaire flight.
“Mobility among billionaires is high,” he said. “Many wealthy people leave every year, it just isn’t always reported as loudly as at the moment. So a couple of highly reported examples don’t in themselves indicate anything has changed.”

My point is, I don't think any political party should be making knee-jerk, short-term, policy choices because of attention grabbing headlines about billionaires - they need to look at long-term trends and listen to economic experts.

I’m pleased about the NI suggestion but sadly it’s just a suggestion which still needs to be voted in. I’m not sure about capital gains being equalised, surely it would have an impact on investment.

I am still glad Burnham ousted Starmer, however it all goes.

It has gone down and returns have gone up. I'm sorry if the facts do not suit your personal political narrative. It must be very inconvenient for you, and I understand why you might adopt denial as a strategy. Many do.

I am afraid I can't really suggest what you could say to me. You don't have to say anything at all if you don't want to.

And of course, nobody is stopping you from talking about immigration if you want to. I'm not saying that it isn't worthy of interest, but it isn't what this thread is about and I'm sick of every political thread getting derailed. We have allowed the political agenda to be dictated by Farage for too long. It's time to focus instead on the problems which are actually affecting people's lives.

And no, I'm afraid I'm not a bot. For future reference, it is against the talk guidelines to accuse people of being bots. I won't report you because I think it's good to let people see the quality of your argument for themselves.