Inheritance tax to rise to 1 million pounds - Tory policy

The stupid assumption that everyone receives benefits due to "refusing to work".

That is the absolute epitome of ignorance. Just tell yourself that to make yourself feel better.

We probably need much higher rates of inheritance tax on the wealthiest. The accumulation of staggering wealth (both as a figure and as a percentage of total wealth) by a small elite is frightening - basically a new aristocracy is currently forming, as bad as the one that dominated the 18th and 19th centuries, with an idle class of opulent rentiers living off the rest of the population.
Changing the threshold to £1m will mainly mean that the children of upper middle class families in London will inherit properties outright, or be able to stay on the property ladder in larger houses. It's hard to see why that should be a major goal of public policy, but for the Tories it is plainly self-interest.
What matters far more though is the destructive nature of a society where inequality becomes more and more entrenched and where the rich and especially the very rich grow further and further apart from the rest and control their destinies and the politics of the nation, as they increasingly do in the UK and elsewhere.

Of course. Just taking from the wealthiest is the best solution. It's not as it these people have worked hard throughout their lives to get what they have.

The threshold increase will affect more than just the upper middle class. House prices have increased a lot, and many people have ended up having very expensive houses despite paying a fraction of the price for them. So the value of your house is hardly a good indicator at your wealth. The fact that the threshold has been raised is a good thing; why should people be taxed on what their parents have worked hard for during their lives?

Point out where it has been said that that that is all people on benefits, or even all people using for banks.

The stupid lack of reading comprehension skills

The assertion was made that nobody should have to rely on a food bank, I merely stated a small group that should, the state should not support those that don't even try to support the state (economically).

Posted from TSR Mobile

Your very first paragraph. You said that jobless people should be thrown onto the streets and rely on food banks.
You completely failed to distinguish between those that don't work out of choice, and those out of work not out of choice.
People like you constantly fail to consider the latter group, which is probably the majority. Instead you focus on the percentage of dishonest unemployed individuals. Because you use them to justify your selfish attitude. But you completely ignore the mass of people who are currently out of work, not out of choice, and are struggling.
It's sheer selfishness. Humanity at its worst. People like you are just greedy.

Of course. Just taking from the wealthiest is the best solution. It's not as it these people have worked hard throughout their lives to get what they have.

The threshold increase will affect more than just the upper middle class. House prices have increased a lot, and many people have ended up having very expensive houses despite paying a fraction of the price for them. So the value of your house is hardly a good indicator at your wealth. The fact that the threshold has been raised is a good thing; why should people be taxed on what their parents have worked hard for during their lives?

Just pointing out House prices rising isn't anyone's hard work, it is the result of the artificial reduction in property development.

In London and the South East, properties over £1m do tend to be concentrated still in middle and upper middle class areas. Yes, there are exceptions to that.
Your first point is absurd. Inheritance taxes are taxes on the inheritors, not the deceased. Clearly the children, grandchildren or nieces and nephews of very rich people have done far less (or nothing) to contribute to the making of that wealth.
You also make the usual right wing mistake of assuming that everyone currently wealthy 'made it' through excessive hard work. In fact, most currently wealthy people come from wealthy families where an element of inheritance played a part in their own success. If you look at the top 100 or 1000 wealthiest people in the UK, the great majority had wealthy or very wealthy parents.

The stupid assumption that everyone receives benefits due to "refusing to work".

That is the absolute epitome of ignorance. Just tell yourself that to make yourself feel better.

No, I said that those who are not in work and are not trying to get into work should, that is VERY different from saying that those not in work should, even if the "and living off the state" part was excluded.

We have unemployement rate running at approximately 5%. Of which about a half are long term unemployed.

So that means 95% of the workforce are able to find work and 2.5% are between jobs.


Why a re we pandering to this 2.5% of the workforce?

No, you did not destinguish between the two. You tarred both with the same brush.
You'll happily support cuts/ legislation which would strongly reduce the quality of low for both these groups of people. Causing suffering to the honest group of unemployed as well as dishonest, but you don't give a toss about that group.

" If I sit here and refused to work and refuse to find work it should not be the obligation of the taxpayer to keep me alive,"
So that does not distinguish between those who aren't trying and those who can't get does it?

Like I said though, you are tarring them both with the same brush! Tell me how, the policies you are supporting will affect only the dishonest?

I'm rather neutral on Inheritance Tax so this does not bother me. As a capitalist, i believe that i should be to do as i wish with my hard earned money including passing it to my children.. but the clue here to my objection (and therefore why i'm largely neutral) is 'hard earned' in that the child receiving it has done nothing. I do think it's a tax that's easy to avoid (not a bad thing) but i think i'd rather support some kind of law which allowed people to set up funds to pay for the private education of many generations, allowed a house to be passed on for each child and possibly did a few other things.. but did not allow massive estates and lump sums.

If you look at the world's USD billionaires over 65% are self made, admittedly I expect China and India have something to do with that and under 13% having inherited all their wealth and the rest inherited but have kept working. You're looking at a similar picture for the UK billionaires, the majority are self made, some inherited, some inherited and kept working

I don't know why people get so exercised about inheritance tax other than for reasons of self-interest/greed. Inheritance of any significant amount is a windfall for the recipient. They have not earned it, they have not worked for it, they have not contributed to it. When you get to values around £1 million, not uncommon for an established middle class family, you are effectively doubling the life time income of someone who would be working an average job. For those in that situation or benefiting from parents wishing to avoid inheritance tax (an easy thing to do except in cases of untimely deaths), it does not exactly provide motivation to work hard and contribute to the economy. Surely taxing inheritance incentives the feckless kids of wealthy parents to do something with their lives?