Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Bruce Wayne]

Interesting piece on both our attempts to be more productive while also providing more homes are undermined by poor performance in the construction sector

The surprising barrier that keeps us from building the housing we need

Sure, there's too much red tape, but there is another reason building anything is so expensive: the construction industry's "awful" productivity.

www.technologyreview.com

 

[bluestevon]

I said it earlier Pete the problem is the Dyson and the clarksons of this world are to blame for buying huge swathes of land in order to cheat the treasury and simultaneously bemoaning the state of the country .

I also said I could probably be persuaded to agree with exemptions but I’m not clever enough to legislate for that .

Also I can see it’d be a bit hard to swallow if city dweller A leaves £500k and is taxed on the excess of the inheritance tax allowance but farmer B whose estate Is valued at ten times that is exempt .

The thing is about inheritance tax is it shouldn't even exist, a person who acquired money and through that property throughout their life has already paid taxes upon it, why then should money that is rightfully his and hss been taxed already then be taxed again upon his death? Essentially the government is saying that all the money you earn and have been taxed upon, has a second hidden tax applies tonite which will be applied whenever you spend the money (property tax, VAT or tax applies to products such as cigarettes alcohol etc) OR if you don't pay that extra tax by saving the money, then you will be taxed anyway upon death on it.

The situation before ones even more comical when you factor in you earn money (taxed upon it) but property (taxed upon it) due and leave property (taxed a third time on what you have essentially earned).

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

And your last sentence is a valid point. No family business should have to suffer IHT in my opinion. What can the inheritors who want to keep it going do. Being asset rich but not cash rich means something has to be sold, to the detriment of the business, jobs and tax revenue. It’s just stupid…….

Why not... Being asset rich probably does mean you are cash rich or at least able to raise substantial cash very easily and quickly, I have no conscience about Windsor family being taxed more. Or thousands of families not quite as rich as them but have millions/billions of asset wealth, being able to create untold cash riches for inheritors.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

The thing is about inheritance tax is it shouldn't even exist, a person who acquired money and through that property throughout their life has already paid taxes upon it, why then should money that is rightfully his and hss been taxed already then be taxed again upon his death? Essentially the government is saying that all the money you earn and have been taxed upon, has a second hidden tax applies tonite which will be applied whenever you spend the money (property tax, VAT or tax applies to products such as cigarettes alcohol etc) OR if you don't pay that extra tax by saving the money, then you will be taxed anyway upon death on it.

The situation before ones even more comical when you factor in you earn money (taxed upon it) but property (taxed upon it) due and leave property (taxed a third time on what you have essentially earned).

I've paid no tax on the increases on property value we own. Not one penny of £60000 it's by increased in 15 years... Still be under inheritance tax thresholds as I type and for the foreseeable.

 

[bluestevon]

I've paid no tax on the increases on property value we own. Not one penny of £60000 it's by increased in 15 years... Still be under inheritance tax thresholds as I type and for the foreseeable.

Thing is though for me I just don't think you should be taxed twice on the same income essentially. Also band thresholds will shift over time.

 

[JP5]

And your last sentence is a valid point. No family business should have to suffer IHT in my opinion. What can the inheritors who want to keep it going do. Being asset rich but not cash rich means something has to be sold, to the detriment of the business, jobs and tax revenue. It’s just stupid…….

I love it when people talk about asset rich and cash poor in this context. Please ignore this £1m asset, I’m actually skint and nepotism is really important to me.

Meritocracy is really important until it isn’t.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The thing is about inheritance tax is it shouldn't even exist, a person who acquired money and through that property throughout their life has already paid taxes upon it, why then should money that is rightfully his and hss been taxed already then be taxed again upon his death? Essentially the government is saying that all the money you earn and have been taxed upon, has a second hidden tax applies tonite which will be applied whenever you spend the money (property tax, VAT or tax applies to products such as cigarettes alcohol etc) OR if you don't pay that extra tax by saving the money, then you will be taxed anyway upon death on it.

The situation before ones even more comical when you factor in you earn money (taxed upon it) but property (taxed upon it) due and leave property (taxed a third time on what you have essentially earned).

I'm inclined to agree, but you also get taxed if you spend the money, so the concept of being taxed when you earn, taxed when you spend, or taxed when you pass the money on isn't outlandish. Obviously inequality is still a huge thing in society, so it does beg the question of whether redistribution is largely useless or whether inequality would be ever greater if the redistribution didn't occur.

I've paid no tax on the increases on property value we own. Not one penny of £60000 it's by increased in 15 years... Still be under inheritance tax thresholds as I type and for the foreseeable.

Inflation has been around 50% in that timeframe. I don't know how much you paid for your house but that's something to consider. It's also worth remembering that the government isn't in the business of giving you a handout if your asset declines in value, which obviously can very much happen.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I love it when people talk about asset rich and cash poor in this context. Please ignore this £1m asset, I’m actually skint and nepotism is really important to me.

Meritocracy is really important until it isn’t.

Does the same apply in the public sector? Should we now expect the NHS to get considerably better now pay has risen? Should trains run on time and not be ruinously expensive now drivers are paid so much more? I suspect not, but who knows?

 

[Tigger]

Don’t think I’ve ever seen a poor farmer. Die hard Tory hypocrites just crying because they have to pay a bit tax on their multi million pound estates. Sod them and tax dodging greedy businesses who were quick to raise prices above inflation but not pay workers their due. You the know the types. Artisan cafes charging £9 for a flap jack.

I get this with businesses, but now the flapjack will be 9.50 with the excuse of higher wages so it's spirals even further towards inflation.

 

[Hackbread]

With relation to farmers, it's estimated 73% of farmers aren't impacted by these budget changes to agricultural inheritance relief.
Alot of those crying hard about it will be the extremely asset rich ones

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

The thing is about inheritance tax is it shouldn't even exist, a person who acquired money and through that property throughout their life has already paid taxes upon it, why then should money that is rightfully his and hss been taxed already then be taxed again upon his death? Essentially the government is saying that all the money you earn and have been taxed upon, has a second hidden tax applies tonite which will be applied whenever you spend the money (property tax, VAT or tax applies to products such as cigarettes alcohol etc) OR if you don't pay that extra tax by saving the money, then you will be taxed anyway upon death on it.

The situation before ones even more comical when you factor in you earn money (taxed upon it) but property (taxed upon it) due and leave property (taxed a third time on what you have essentially earned).

In other words, higher taxes in other areas are needed.

Again, folk will be squealing, particularly the very wealthy.

No one wants to pay tax. But if we want stuff provided at local and national govt level we have to pay for it.

If anything inheritance tax is a 'political' tax. For the majority it is hidden, we'll never see it or feel the effects. Parties of both colours have kept it. The Tories talk up getting rid or reduce it. Labour will never get rid. Doesn't affect too many voters, but adds to the coffers.

 

[Xizor]

The thing is about inheritance tax is it shouldn't even exist, a person who acquired money and through that property throughout their life has already paid taxes upon it, why then should money that is rightfully his and hss been taxed already then be taxed again upon his death? Essentially the government is saying that all the money you earn and have been taxed upon, has a second hidden tax applies tonite which will be applied whenever you spend the money (property tax, VAT or tax applies to products such as cigarettes alcohol etc) OR if you don't pay that extra tax by saving the money, then you will be taxed anyway upon death on it.

The situation before ones even more comical when you factor in you earn money (taxed upon it) but property (taxed upon it) due and leave property (taxed a third time on what you have essentially earned).

The benificiary pays the tax on the inheritance the same way other sources of income are taxed. The dead person doesn't pay it (clearly they're dead). As such there's no "the same money taxed twice" going on and your point is entirely invalid.

I've said before that I don't really support inheritance as a concept anyway and think estates automatically going to the community/state for redistibution would solve a lot of society's problems around greed and inequality, but this would be contingent on people en masse believing this was the 'natural' system in the first place (ie something that had been done since tribal times) which obviously is never going to be the case now.

 

[PhilM]

I said it earlier Pete the problem is the Dyson and the clarksons of this world are to blame for buying huge swathes of land in order to cheat the treasury and simultaneously bemoaning the state of the country .

I also said I could probably be persuaded to agree with exemptions but I’m not clever enough to legislate for that .

Also I can see it’d be a bit hard to swallow if city dweller A leaves £500k and is taxed on the excess of the inheritance tax allowance but farmer B whose estate Is valued at ten times that is exempt .

For me, arable land and the farming industry should in essence have some form of limited exemptions, but like you, I'm not sure how that would be implemented.

My mother grew up in the shires, so my maternal side of the family were involved in farming, and more particularly the production of milk and cheese.

Farming was a part of family life, and for a lad from L8 I always found the wealth of knowledge fascinating, which is essence passed down through generations.

While I'm uncomfortable with the principle of one group paying it and another not, I'm equally uncomfortable with the idea of farmers having to sell land to survive.

People buying up land to produce super-farms or back to the ol' days of tenant farming (wealthy owners who can afford to get around IT) is not what we want.

And to be clear, my grandparents were never near the point of owning a farm - they were land workers - yet I saw the level of expertise and effort needed.

 

[JP5]

Does the same apply in the public sector? Should we now expect the NHS to get considerably better now pay has risen? Should trains run on time and not be ruinously expensive now drivers are paid so much more? I suspect not, but who knows?

I wouldn’t expect so no. Because 40bn is a drop in the ocean of what is required given the years of those things being neglected.

But does that mean we should just allow people to silo wealth for generations when clearly they aren’t using the capital as efficiently as they should? It’s not really much of an advert for capitalism is it?

 

[bluestevon]

The benificiary pays the tax on the inheritance the same way other sources of income are taxed. The dead person doesn't pay it (clearly they're dead). As such there's no "the same money taxed twice" going on and your point is entirely invalid.

I've said before that I don't really support inheritance as a concept anyway and think estates automatically going to the community/state for redistibution would solve a lot of society's problems around greed and inequality, but this would be contingent on people en masse believing this was the 'natural' system in the first place (ie something that had been done since tribal times) which obviously is never going to be the case now.

Don't be pedantic, the money that was taxed upon being earned is being taxed again. Yes the person whose money it was it now dead, but the money didn't transform into something new, it's still the same money that was left remaining after previously being taxed.

As for you second highlighted part...

Basically communism then?