Inheritance tax to rise to 1 million pounds - Tory policy

Chancellor George Osborne's Budget is to confirm the end of inheritance tax on family homes worth up to £1m.

He is expected to tell MPs on Wednesday that the threshold at which the tax is levied will rise for couples from £650,000 after April 2017.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33393480

Views?

Reply 1

username1221160

19

2017? Better keep my parents alive for at least another couple of years then.

Reply 2

Bill_Gates

OP

21

Original post by Quantex

2017? Better keep my parents alive for at least another couple of years then.

haha maybe a treadmill for christmas?

Reply 3

SotonianOne

3

Too low. Unfair on families who have been pushed onto inheritance tax purely because of housing market speculation and economic growth and inflation.

Should be around 5 million or abolished.

Reply 4

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by SotonianOne

Too low. Unfair on families who have been pushed onto inheritance tax purely because of housing market speculation and economic growth and inflation.

Should be around 5 million or abolished.

1 million is not a bad start point. I know what you're saying but it's still a move in the right direction. Whatever the level is set at there will always be a 'but what about the people who'

Reply 5

SeaPony

2

I think it should be higher, it should not be targeting the middle class.

Reply 6

Maker

20

They should raise it to £2 million and pay for it by cutting housing benefit. I get the feeling a lot of people with money will use it to buy a house for just under £1 million to avoid the tax.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7

Fullofsurprises

20

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.

Reply 8

Rakas21

21

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.

Reply 9

billydisco

3

Original post by Maker

I get the feeling a lot of people with money will use it to buy a house for just under £1 million to avoid the tax.

I was wondering that..... why not just make it £1m not £1m house.

Reply 10

billydisco

3

Original post by Fullofsurprises

We probably need much higher rates of inheritance tax on the wealthiest.

Whilst people not contributing any tax receive child benefit for their third bastard?

No thanks darling :wink:

Reply 11

VladThe1mpaler

14

people are eating out of food banks and struggling to pay rent

but it's good to see the tories have their priorities straight

Reply 12

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by VladThe1mpaler

people are eating out of food banks and struggling to pay rent

but it's good to see the tories have their priorities straight

They're a minority. A much inflated minority.

Reply 13

Reue

20

Ought to be abolished entirely. Tax has already been paid at source and will again be paid when spent, no need for this 3rd taxation.

Reply 14

VladThe1mpaler

14

Original post by MatureStudent36

They're a minority. A much inflated minority.

Even if that were the case, no one should be eating out of food banks in this day and age while the tories will continue to cut taxes for the wealthy. It's dickensian and there should be more outrage about it.

I'm sure I read that it was 24% living in relative poverty, I'll need to find the article.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 15

Reue

20

Original post by VladThe1mpaler

but it's good to see the tories have their priorities straight

The argument would be that they have got their priorities straight, and indeed they won a majority so it seems right that they begin enforcing their priorities.

Welfare isn't a priority of conservatives.. what a surprise.

Reply 16

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by VladThe1mpaler

Even if that were the case, no one should be eating out of food banks in this day and age while the tories will continue to cut taxes for the wealthy. It's dickensian and there should be more outrage about it.

Food bank usage has increased throughout the western world.

Do you think giving people more money that they haven't earned to buy food is any different to using a food bank? In both situations people are unable to fend for themselves and rely on a third party.

Why not get business built back up to get rid of some of the reasons for food bank usage. ( they'll always be people who will need to use them.)

Reply 17

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by VladThe1mpaler

Even if that were the case, no one should be eating out of food banks in this day and age while the tories will continue to cut taxes for the wealthy. It's dickensian and there should be more outrage about it.

I'm sure I read that it was 24% living in relative poverty, I'll need to find the article.

Absolute town. 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, I should be thrown out on the street and have to beg and use a for bank if necessary.

This will reduce revenues by no more than 3.5bn, almost certainly a lot less than that; this change is also intended to envisaged the elderly to downsize, freeing up some of the 7.7m empty rooms they have, reducing pressure of the housing market.

Similarly, I imagine you're going to complain about the abolishing of the top rate of tax if that does GI ahead. Extracted cost: £900m, I.e the top ~1pc have a tax cut off a few thousand, yet I somehow doubt you will complain when they, and most other income tax payers, get (up to) £40 when the change to personal threshold is implemented, nor when they get a further £340 off their tax over the next parliament at the cost of up to about £10bn. That is ten billion that is not being spent on the sectors of society you want it to be, yet you will laud the change, yet you complain about a few hundred million.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 18

Twinpeaks

18

Original post by Maker

They should raise it to £2 million and pay for it by cutting housing benefit. I get the feeling a lot of people with money will use it to buy a house for just under £1 million to avoid the tax.

Pay for it by cutting housing benefit?

So take from the poor to give to the rich?
What a lecherous attitude.

Reply 19

Twinpeaks

18

Original post by Jammy Duel

Absolute town. 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, I should be thrown out on the street and have to beg and use a for bank if necessary.

This will reduce revenues by no more than 3.5bn, almost certainly a lot less than that; this change is also intended to envisaged the elderly to downsize, freeing up some of the 7.7m empty rooms they have, reducing pressure of the housing market.

Similarly, I imagine you're going to complain about the abolishing of the top rate of tax if that does GI ahead. Extracted cost: £900m, I.e the top ~1pc have a tax cut off a few thousand, yet I somehow doubt you will complain when they, and most other income tax payers, get (up to) £40 when the change to personal threshold is implemented, nor when they get a further £340 off their tax over the next parliament at the cost of up to about £10bn. That is ten billion that is not being spent on the sectors of society you want it to be, yet you will laud the change, yet you complain about a few hundred million.

Posted from TSR Mobile

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.

Inheritance tax to rise to 1 million pounds - Tory policy

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you