Turn on thread page Beta

Third of voters believe Tories are party of 'upper classes' watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    The house is worth over £650,000? Remember that married couples effectively already share IHT thresholds. The average house price is around £225,000 overall or £350,000 for a detached. If your house is worth £650,000; you count as pretty rich. You certainly count as rich if you get a windfall of over £650,000 from your parents that you did absolutely nothing whatsoever to earn.
    As from April 2009, the rate at which you are subjected to inheritance tax is £325,000.

    The Inheritance Tax threshold (or nil rate band) is the amount up to which an estate will have no Inheritance Tax to pay.

    If the estate – including any assets held in trust and gifts made within seven years of death – is more than the threshold, Inheritance Tax will be due at 40 per cent on the amount over the nil rate band.

    The amount I am set to inherit is over the nil rate band which means I am subjected to it - and that is only including my dads side...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    As from April 2009, the rate at which you are subjected to inheritance tax is £325,000.

    The Inheritance Tax threshold (or nil rate band) is the amount up to which an estate will have no Inheritance Tax to pay.

    If the estate – including any assets held in trust and gifts made within seven years of death – is more than the threshold, Inheritance Tax will be due at 40 per cent on the amount over the nil rate band.

    The amount I am set to inherit is over the nil rate band which means I am subjected to it - and that is only including my dads side...
    Am I the only person who finds it creepy when people are thinking about their inheritence while their parents are still alive?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The inheritance tax issue is a lot more complex than people here make it out to be. The study linked below shows how completely ending the death tax, while slightly different than our inheritance tax, in the USA would:

    • Create 1.5 million jobs per year
    • Increase small business investment capital by more than $1.6 trillion each year;
    • Increase the probability of hiring by 8.6 percent;
    • Increase payrolls 2.6 percent;
    • Expand investment 3 percent; and
    • Drop the unemployment rate 0.9 percent.

    Well, those are pretty much pasted from the article for simplicity, and their tax is slightly different from ours, as is their "economic model", but hopefully you see the issue is more complex than simply tax and revenue.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/09/...-million-jobs/

    P.S: Obama's stimulus bill was supposed to create 3 million jobs (which it didn't) at the cost of.... $787 billion. At MOST, this would "cost" $26.2 billion in tax receipts in 2009.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MazalTov89)
    This. It really pisses me off when Labour continualy harp-on about this "class war", when they themselves have ignored the working class since 1997.
    i don't think i've ever heard new labour mention class war.......
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    That is a stupid argument.
    I made this awesome piece of art. Thus as not many people own it, I am rich mwhahaha ....

    Seriously, stupid point.

    But seriously though, surely if a political party is meant to represent everyone (which they should aim to do if they want to win), they should have people from all walks of life...

    And at the moment the Conservatives clearly are still tilting too much towards the upper class/upper middle class - why else would the OP have mentioned the statistic?

    Also, I wasn't trying to say just because not many people own something, it makes them rich - I was trying to point out how many people can afford to own a moat - or afford to buy such a house that comes with a moat?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    third of voters are gimps.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This is the main reason they're 40 points ahead in the polls rather than 50-60.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *R*a*c*h*)
    But seriously though, surely if a political party is meant to represent everyone (which they should aim to do if they want to win), they should have people from all walks of life...
    Why and how?
    How do you achieve it? All women/minority shortlists?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    A third of voters believe that the Conservatives are the party of the "upper classes", according to a new poll.

    Despite David Cameron's efforts to modernise the Tories a significant chunk of the electorate still feel they represent the privileged few, the survey indicates.

    Wow - Even with David Cameron as the leader, people still perceive the Conservative Party as the party for the rich.
    .

    Yes, they're called left-wingers. They'll always think that. Who cares? It's not like that sort of person would vote Conservative anyway.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OrdinaryDay)
    The reason a third of voters believe Tories are a party for the upper-classes is because they remain largely composed by the wealthy
    That's absolute rubbish. There are plenty of working and lower middle class Conservatives: they make up the bulk of the party. Parliament, however, will always be composed of wealthy people - it's what happens when you give them a good salary and allow them to earn from other sources at the same time.

    their policies continue to demonstrate favour to the wealthy
    So? They wealthy ought to be favoured in a society - we value the earning of wealth: it's one of the fundamental characteristics of a capitalist society.

    and they have a leader who is a continuation, not a revocation of the status quo. If anything, Cameron is the biggest 'toff' to have lead the Conservative party in some years - Hague was more popular among non-Tories and Major, after all, left school at 14. Even Mrs Thatcher wasn't an out and out toff like Cameron. (I omit IDS merely because of his total, permanent irrelevance...)
    Mrs Thatcher not 'an out and out toff'? Of course she wasn't! Indeed, the Conservatives have had plenty of leaders who barely scrape into the middle class. In addition to not mentioning IDS, you've also failed to mention Michael Howard.

    Compare that to New Labour, with its solidly middle class current leader, and its Old Fettesian former leader. Ha.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    That number shocked me, it's too low if anything.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    As from April 2009, the rate at which you are subjected to inheritance tax is £325,000.

    The Inheritance Tax threshold (or nil rate band) is the amount up to which an estate will have no Inheritance Tax to pay.

    If the estate – including any assets held in trust and gifts made within seven years of death – is more than the threshold, Inheritance Tax will be due at 40 per cent on the amount over the nil rate band.

    The amount I am set to inherit is over the nil rate band which means I am subjected to it - and that is only including my dads side...
    Yes, but that is a threshold for each individual. You talk of your parents. They have two inheritance tax allowances to use - there are effectively two estates. To make inheritance tax simpler for people, HMRC allow spouses to carry across their inheritance tax allowance as long as the second spouse survives the first by 28 days; and there is no inheritance tax between spouses.

    Let me give an example to illustrate how this works.

    Your parents own a house worth £800,000 in joint names. Your mother dies, and she leaves everything to your father in her will. Your mother is deemed to have made a transfer of £400,000 to your father, who now owns the house outright. Nothing is payable at this point because there is no IHT tax between spouses. As long as your father survives your mother by 28 days, he can carry her £325,000 allowance across with the £400,000 transfer. When your father dies, his allowance gets added to your mother's £325,000 allowance. The total allowance is £650,000; you pay inheritance tax on £150,000.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crazylemon)
    And?
    They are just twits.

    I am not voting for a big 3 party anyway.
    LPUK if they stand, Independent/UKIP if not (though I wish farage was still at the helm)
    Yeah when will they announce whether they're standing or not?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This third of voters are stupid ***** who know nothing about politics then.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobo1234)
    Yeah when will they announce whether they're standing or not?
    Yeah, that's just what we're all interested in -- voting for a party which has no chance of gaining a single seat.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    One only need look at the Tories' plans to cut inheritance tax for the wealthiest to see that the Conservatives will never be a party that represents working people's interests.


    EDIT: I realise that others have brought up this issue before I did
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Yeah, that's just what we're all interested in -- voting for a party which has no chance of gaining a single seat.
    Uh...I didn't say anyone else WAS interested- nor did I imply that My implication was that I was interested, hence the question...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hy~)
    The inheritance tax issue is a lot more complex than people here make it out to be. The study linked below shows how completely ending the death tax, while slightly different than our inheritance tax, in the USA would:

    • Create 1.5 million jobs per year
    • Increase small business investment capital by more than $1.6 trillion each year;
    • Increase the probability of hiring by 8.6 percent;
    • Increase payrolls 2.6 percent;
    • Expand investment 3 percent; and
    • Drop the unemployment rate 0.9 percent.

    Well, those are pretty much pasted from the article for simplicity, and their tax is slightly different from ours, as is their "economic model", but hopefully you see the issue is more complex than simply tax and revenue.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/09/...-million-jobs/

    P.S: Obama's stimulus bill was supposed to create 3 million jobs (which it didn't) at the cost of.... $787 billion. At MOST, this would "cost" $26.2 billion in tax receipts in 2009.

    While the references for that article (and the study the statistics are from) are pretty solid in terms of economics names, you'll find they are almost invariably conservative economists, while liberal economists (Paul Krugman and co.) almost invariably say differently.

    I'm not for estate tax at the current threshold, it should definitely be raised, the middle class are being taxed by a measure originally designed for the super-rich.

    However, you can't just show the one side of the argument. Economists are far, and I mean far, from in agreement over the effects of the estate tax. That article, like any article on the estate tax, is very good at cherry-picking statistics to fit its cause. There are also some strange ideas about estate tax being effectively a marginal capital gains tax throughout life (in order to justify effects on employment) which frankly seems to rely on some pretty sketchy assumptions, although I'd hesitate to call out the economist who wrote it--maybe there is good evidence for this claim somewhere.

    Researching the history of the 'Death Tax Repeal' movement is amusing. You'll find it was a campaign originally started by the super-super-super rich, who gained support by rallying the rich, then turned against them when the rich realised the tax needed to come from somewhere and said it should be the super rich... Ugly stuff. But needless to say it's a very, very partisan issue, and it's difficult to find real objective studies on it.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by L i b)
    That's absolute rubbish. There are plenty of working and lower middle class Conservatives: they make up the bulk of the party. Parliament, however, will always be composed of wealthy people - it's what happens when you give them a good salary and allow them to earn from other sources at the same time.
    The Conservatives lag notably behind the other parties in the diversity of their MPs, consistently failing to draw them from backgrounds other than wealthy, middle-aged white male. Not that this is bad per se, of course, but it does foster certain ideas about how in touch they can really be.

    (Original post by L i b)
    So? They wealthy ought to be favoured in a society - we value the earning of wealth: it's one of the fundamental characteristics of a capitalist society.
    As a libertarian, I agree - but I think they are favouring the wrong kinds of wealth. Instead of lowering income tax, which encourages upward mobility and fruition of those with talent, the Tories plan to cut inheritance tax thresh-holds. All that does is make the wealthy wealthier through no extra merit of their own - as an aspiring citizen I would rather have my parents' income (to which I have less claim, not actually having earnt it myself) taxed than my own income. Wouldn't you agree?

    Personally I think the cutting of inheritance tax is absolutely ridiculous. How many people have a house worth £1 million? How many people even know someone with a house worth that much? It's just a tax break for Cameron and his kind - or that is, at least, how it is likely to be perceived by the electorate.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Yes, but that is a threshold for each individual. You talk of your parents. They have two inheritance tax allowances to use - there are effectively two estates. To make inheritance tax simpler for people, HMRC allow spouses to carry across their inheritance tax allowance as long as the second spouse survives the first by 28 days; and there is no inheritance tax between spouses.

    Let me give an example to illustrate how this works.

    Your parents own a house worth £800,000 in joint names. Your mother dies, and she leaves everything to your father in her will. Your mother is deemed to have made a transfer of £400,000 to your father, who now owns the house outright. Nothing is payable at this point because there is no IHT tax between spouses. As long as your father survives your mother by 28 days, he can carry her £325,000 allowance across with the £400,000 transfer. When your father dies, his allowance gets added to your mother's £325,000 allowance. The total allowance is £650,000; you pay inheritance tax on £150,000.
    My parents are separated hence why I didn't add them together. When my Dad dies, my inheritance will be taxed - Outrageous really.
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.