My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

News

Tories plan to scrap inheritance tax for estates up to £1m is to cost £3.3bn!!!

289 replies

PSCMUM · 01/10/2007 19:42

please tell me, fellow mumsnetters, that you see how awful this would be for public services???! PLease tell me you are less self preservationist than the 2 (pinstriped) aresholes on the tube with me today saying how great it would be as they would get so much more of the value of their parents houses when they died!
I bloody can't stand tories, but this policy is worrying me as it is so appealing as long as you don't consider how they are affording to make such a humungous tax cut - ie, cutting public services. Doctors pay, nurses pay, schools, hospitals, fire engines, lolly pop people, income support, legal aid, free wine for deranged left wingers on mumsnet (ooops, maybe last one just wishful thinking)

OP posts:
Report
nospeak · 02/10/2007 09:57

Well, I think it is a good idea... And no I am not a greedy bastard, my parents live in council properties so I personally would not benefit from the proposal.

Report
CountessDracula · 02/10/2007 10:31

Well I would stand to benefit enormously from this several times over

But I am vehemently anti it.

Report
TheQueenOfQuotes · 02/10/2007 10:35

DH made an interesting point last night - is IHT really making the rich richer, and making the poor poorer??

I mean if you are paying a mortgage, and working your nose off to pay your bills (as many people are - and therefore have less disposable income and no way to "move ahead" in their choice of career etc because of the cost of training etc) and then your parents die - leaving you their (debt free) house. You then either have the option of living in the house (and losing the massive burden of a mortgage or selling it and buying something more suitable for you and your family). Both of which would mean that you (who had previously been "poor" - and I use the term very loosely) would then have more disposable income and become richer....

If you then become better off then your children will automatically have a better chance in life and so on..........so infact people who are currently living the daily slog of life will no longer be in that position.........

Report
Anteater · 02/10/2007 10:46

Whats interesting here (for a MN debate) is that many of you are all talking as the inheriters and not as the ones who going to snuff it and leave any wealth you may have to your ds/dds!
I have many siblings, as does my wife so we have never felt any cash coming our way.

Am I foolish for wanting to pass on what I am working for.

The landed gentry (of which sadly I am not one!) live and work for the next generations (trusts etc)

Report
chocolatedot · 02/10/2007 11:02

Forgive me if somebody has already pointed this out but the policy would have no impact on public services because it will be entirely funded by the levy on non-domiciled tax payers, something which I can't imagine anyone objecting to.

Report
wordgirl · 02/10/2007 11:06

I think Anteater is right. I'm not remotely bothered about what I will inherit from my parents but DH and I are not rich by any means. We have 3 DSs and won't be able to afford to help them out financially while we're alive. The equity in the house is all we've got to leave them really and by the time it's shared between the three of them (and after tax) it won't be a lot. We can't afford to fund them through university or help them get a foot on the housing ladder and we would like to be able to help them out in some way - even if we have to die to be able to do it!

Report
Piffle · 02/10/2007 11:07

another reason it will have no impact
they WON'T GET IN

they could promise free trips to the moon and 0% interest rates and 0% tax
tis all a fantasy plan

Report
ImBarryScott · 02/10/2007 11:08

but chocolate dot, those sums soooo don't add up. that's what i can't stand about osborne. the man's not daft, so clearly he thinks we are, if he expects us to believe his very suspect accounting.

Report
chocolatedot · 02/10/2007 11:09

wordgirl, I'm a bit confused. Doesn't your example show how much an inheritance from your parents could be in terms of helping to educate and hosue your children?

Report
chocolatedot · 02/10/2007 11:09

Imbarryscott, that's just an opinion. I'm non-dom and I think it's a credible and fair policy.

Report
fircone · 02/10/2007 11:10

Well, I am changing tack.

No longer shall I encourage my dcs at school. Waste of time.

I shall reinvent myself as Mrs Bennett and seek to arrange them advantageous marriages to those with parents residing in favourable property hotspots.

Report
harpsichordcarrier · 02/10/2007 11:15

lol at the front of the Daily Express today:
VICTORY FOR THE DAILY EXPRESS!
I rest my case

Report
CountessDracula · 02/10/2007 11:19

I agree they won't get in

Re talking about inheriting rather than leaving the money to your dcs

I think careful planning and giving it all away more than 7 years before you die (obv that could not work!) should result in paying a minimum of IHT.

Though did I hear they are abolishing PETs?

Report
CapitalistSockpuppet · 02/10/2007 11:23

Of course they won't get in.

But that doesn't change the material point that there is nothing wrong with wanting your children to benefit after you die. It used to be a given that you would want to do that. Instead, you grasping socialists force 'benevolence' on people so you can syphon the tax into your pet projects.

It's the socialists who are being greedy, but their greedy for their ideologies, so that's alright.

Report
harpsichordcarrier · 02/10/2007 11:26

perfectly ok to leave money to your children.
perfectly OK to be taxed on it.
there is huge disadvantage and injustice in the world, in this country, it is not unreasonable to want to balance hings out a little for everyone.

Report
eleusis · 02/10/2007 11:32

I don't think this is really about whether or not inheritance tax is morally just -- as some people seem to be arguing. But, rather, with todays inflated housing market is some £300 where it should begin? It was introduced as a tax on the rich. It has become a tax on average Joe. Is that still right? I personally think there are far too many taxes on average Joes in this country. Life has become unaffordable for hard working avreage people. Of course I'm no finance expert, but I expect the markets will soon reveal that fact. And when they do, I expect Gordon Brown will be a tad less popular.

Report
Eliza2 · 02/10/2007 11:49

Gordon Brown OUGHT to be less popular.

Who signed the cheque for Iraq? Gordon Brown. Who decided to tax pension funds (all pensions funds, including those of the low- and modestly-paid? Gordon Brown.

Report
TheDullWitch · 02/10/2007 11:53

This announcement is simply to lift TOries up in polls, as chucking money at the electorate always does. So that GOrdon doesn t call an election before the Tories are ready to fight it.

No one has mentioned that yesterday the Tories also pledged to abolish stamp duty for first time buyers. (Both of these are paid by sticking 25K on non-doms) A good thing, non?

Report
chocolatedot · 02/10/2007 11:53

Agree Eliza2, I'm astonished at how he seems to have escaped the blame from Iraq. Also was completely shocked by his speech last week "British jobs for British workers", if a Tory had said that, the press would have crucified them.

Report
WendyWeber · 02/10/2007 11:55

Long piece about George Osborne in the Guardian on Sat



This is one of the biggest differences between Labour & Tories - you just know that most of them have no idea what real life is like for most of the electorate.

Report
Bluestocking · 02/10/2007 11:59

FFS, inheritance tax still isn't a tax on the average joe. If the average house price in the UK is around £210K (and I''m not sure if that's the mean or the median, which would make a difference) then more than half the house-owning population own houses valued at less than £350K - and it's important to remember that there are plenty of people in this country who do not own houses and whose children do not stand to benefit from a massive, unearned windfall. And I really don't believe for one instant that all those non-property-owning families are feckless tramps who don't deserve a share in this country's massive wealth, in the form of decent public services.

Report
SueBarooeeooeeooooo · 02/10/2007 11:59

Bloody norah, what a twonk. I've voted for both tories and labour in the past, but I think I might just sit on my hands next time.

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

CapitalistSockpuppet · 02/10/2007 12:01

Oh yes! because Higher taxes=Better public services.

My arse.

Report
Bluestocking · 02/10/2007 12:01

WW, I was just about to link to that piece about George Osborne - he and his ghastly cronies have absolutely no idea how the majority of people in this country actually live. Reminds me of something I overheard on a bus in the student area of Birmingham (rather shabby two-up two-down terraces) - one frightfully plummy Home Counties undergrad to her indistinguishably similar pal, "Isn't it extraordinary to think that some people will live in houses like this all their lives?".

Report
WendyWeber · 02/10/2007 12:08

The stamp duty threshold is £120K. In most of the country first-time buyers will be paying less than that, so no stamp duty anyway - it's another SE England benefit

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.