The budget

Dave1 said:
Yes, if you lose your job and they deem you to have been at fault in the dismissal then they basically fine you x weeks of Jobseekers Allowance, effectively the jobseeker gets no money for a period decided by the Job Centre as a punishment.
Click to expand...
Whilst it is correct, the answer is against the wrong question. Exclusivity is not enforceable, if they sack you for it, it can't be your fault.

The real issue is as was stated earlier how quickly the safety net springs into action. It should be much more agile and adaptive to people's situation. However it should also be in a fair manner.
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
Well you can still blame it's because I is a foreigner innit. ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah but I kinda like you, so I wouldn't shoot you in the face :D
But if you keep posting images of me on your web site, and I might just kick you in the shins though :p
 
onomatopoeia said:
Will it make a difference to retirees downsizing? I don't think so, the reason my parents want a smaller house is nothing to do with IHT (theirs is under the threshold anyway), it's to do with them getting old and not wanting such a big house to look after and not needing the space for children as we're long gone.
Click to expand...
Really? The difference between staying in a £1m home or downsizing to a £500k one will be a £120k tax bill for your children. Do you really think people will ignore that?
 
Cobra said:
Yeah but I kinda like you, so I wouldn't shoot you in the face :D
But if you keep posting images of me on your web site, and I might just kick you in the shins though :p
Click to expand...
Hmm haven't posted that in a while.

:exit:
 
nilagin said:
Just because someone teaches a subject doesn't mean they know what they are talking about, hence the expression, "Those that can't do, teach". He probably couldn't cut it in the real world. ;)
Click to expand...
Academics' primary job is research, not teaching.
And it's not just academia - I've yet to meet a single economist working in industry who doesn't believe in supply & demand.
 
Llamaman said:
I agree that the London market is absurd. Which is why it's really stupid to make it worse by making property a more appealing investment by giving it special tax breaks. £700k - £1m isn't that big a house in London (where I live £700k would get you a nice 3 bed flat) - a LOT of London properties will be affected by this.

Outside of London, the effect on house prices will be much smaller as it's well above average family home values. Which makes it a tax cut for the rich.

So... a policy that exacerbates the London house crisis AND gives a tax break to rich Tory donors in Berkshire. Well done, George.
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention all the labour voters in London who hold the majority.
 
nilagin said:
You forgot to mention all the labour voters in London who hold the majority.
Click to expand...
Not sure what your point is there? Are you suggesting this policy is a swipe at middle-income Londoners as punishment for voting Labour? Seems unlikely to me.

I think it's George trying to boost his credentials with grass-root Tory voters before the leadership election. Note how May just gave Boris a massive slapdown too. We've got another 5 years of this to come!
 
Llamaman said:
Really? The difference between staying in a £1m home or downsizing to a £500k one will be a £120k tax bill for your children. Do you really think people will ignore that?
Click to expand...
Will the other £500k just evaporate, not to be inherited or form part of an estate? Gifts given before death can still be counted as part of an estate for IHT purposes unless the giver lives for seven years, to my understanding.

Not that it makes much difference, as however it ends up there is one £500k home that someone other than the parents that didn't downsize is living in, and one £1m home that the beneficiaries of the non-downsizing parents that have died own. They might sell it, or they might let it or they might move in to it. However you look at it, someone will be living in it, so the housing supply will be unaffected. For supply to be cut off, it would require beneficiaries to sit on an asset spending money on maintenance and taxes, when it could either be liquidated to cash from sale or produce a good income while remaining in their ownership.
 
Llamaman said:
Not sure what your point is there? Are you suggesting this policy is a swipe at middle-income Londoners as punishment for voting Labour? Seems unlikely to me.

I think it's George trying to boost his credentials with grass-root Tory voters before the leadership election. Note how May just gave Boris a massive slapdown too. We've got another 5 years of this to come!
Click to expand...
No it means lots of people benefit not just Tories as you like to point out.
I reiterate, that Professor has no way of knowing how any beneficiaries will react on not having to pay IHT on £1M estates and whether they will sell the property or not. Just because he is a supposed expert doesn't mean he can predict accurately how people will react in such a case. Especially with numerous beneficiaries to an estate.
 
nilagin said:
No it means lots of people benefit not just Tories as you like to point out.
I reiterate, that Professor has no way of knowing how any beneficiaries will react on not having to pay IHT on £1M estates and whether they will sell the property or not. Just because he is a supposed expert doesn't mean he can predict accurately how people will react in such a case. Especially with numerous beneficiaries to an estate.
Click to expand...
One thing I know how those beneficiaries react.....spend the extra money whichever way they want :)
 
onomatopoeia said:
Will the other £500k just evaporate, not to be inherited or form part of an estate? Gifts given before death can still be counted as part of an estate for IHT purposes unless the giver lives for seven years, to my understanding.
Click to expand...
No, it will attract inheritance tax to the extent it exceeds the IHT nil rate band.
£1m house = no IHT
£500k house + £500k cash = £300k taxable estate @ 40% = £120k tax.

Quite why this government thinks that downsizing is a 'mischief' that needs to discouraged by tax policy has not been explained.

You're mostly right about the 7 year death clock. Alas, not all of us can be precise about the date of our demise and the Gift with Reservation rules have made this type of planning more difficult.
 
Last edited:
 
Llamaman said:
No, it will attract inheritance tax to the extent it exceeds the IHT nil rate band.
£1m house = no IHT
£500k house + £500k cash = £300k taxable estate @ 40% = £120k tax.

Quite why this government thinks that downsizing is a 'mischief' that needs to discouraged by tax policy has not been explained.

You're mostly right about the 7 year death clock. Alas, not all of us can be precise about the date of our demise and the Gift with Reservation rules have made this type of planning more difficult.
Click to expand...
So basically by a second house or a larger one.
 
No thank you. It's mine.
 
Llamaman said:
No, it will attract inheritance tax to the extent it exceeds the IHT nil rate band.
£1m house = no IHT
£500k house + £500k cash = £300k taxable estate @ 40% = £120k tax.
Click to expand...
Now my understanding was it was the existing £650k (assets of any kind) + a new £350k family home allowance for a couple (half those figures for single people), so provided the downsized home is worth at least £350k, the whole £1m can be passed on. If the moveable assets are worth more than £650k then the excess will be taxed at 40%.

I'm not an accountant, just someone trying to understand the media reporting.
 
Cartus said:
How about 100% IHT?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmatthews/2014/07/24/why-isnt-inheritance-tax-100-per-cent/
Click to expand...
It would lead to aggressive tax planning to avoid it. It would mean that all small companies would eventually belong to the state when their shareholders died, so a family business would become a nationalised industry on the death of its founder, unless a mechanism was introduced to allow this to be avoided, in which case the company would also of course own the family home and rent it to the family ( I'm being simplistic, but you can see how difficult it would be to write tax law to cope with the state getting everything on your death).
 
After having read the majority of the thread, I do have sympathy for someone who planned to have several children, but then experiences a drastic change in financial circumstances, resulting in hardship. This is what the welfare state was designed for, to look after people who, generally through no fault or error on their part, found themselves in financial strife. Something which could happen to any one of us, tomorrow. I would challenge even the most hardened capitalist to take issue with the original concept of the welfare state. Most people would perhaps agree that in modern times, the poor social attitude or lack of morals shown by certain individuals, is the real issue. This problem is further compounded by inadequate rules, poor enforcement of existing legislation and weak punishments for those who defraud the tax payer. It is this matter that needs addressing in earnest.

Every single time there is a budget, people all over the country discuss the same issues, quoting flavour of the month terminology contrived by the government to make any given tax sound like a better proposition, and then moan about how badly they will be affected as an individual or family. None of it really matters, by the time changes are announced in the budget, it's too late for us to influence them. Even if we could, whatever change we would make as individuals, would be to the detriment of Mr. Smith at the end of the street.

Regardless of the political leanings of a given government, to the general populace, fiscal policy is roulette, with the odds stacked heavily in favour of the house [of commons]. Each demographic is a number on the wheel. Win some, lose some. We need to suck it up and carry on, focusing on being productive as individuals. It will even itself out eventually, maybe even in your life time, if you're lucky.

Let's just all have a Jaffa cake.

:jaffa:
 
Llamaman said:
You're mostly right about the 7 year death clock. Alas, not all of us can be precise about the date of our demise and the Gift with Reservation rules have made this type of planning more difficult.
Click to expand...
You can start passing the money on any time you like, my mate and his brother have been getting a sum of money each from their parents for around 20yrs now, probably as soon as their father retired.
 
Llamaman said:
So, now you're comparing economics with Scientology? The first link you provide all day in a budget thread is about Scientology? And you still haven't actually provided any substantive evidence for any one of the comments you've made.

If you're going to troll, you need to be more subtle about it. At least ST4 is funny.
Click to expand...

Clearly you aren't seeing all of my posts, or you're just choosing to be selective. The Scientology reply was a joke, lighten up ;)
 
Rapscallion said:
If we were discussing scientology, referencing L Ron Hubbard would be perfectly valid. But we are not, we are discussing economics, so we are referencing a professor of economics at oxford university. can you state your argument against his reasoning?
Click to expand...

LOL.. really :)
 
Llamaman said:
No, it will attract inheritance tax to the extent it exceeds the IHT nil rate band.
£1m house = no IHT
£500k house + £500k cash = £300k taxable estate @ 40% = £120k tax.
Click to expand...

Sorry Andy if I'm being a bit thick, I'm no tax expert, but how have you worked those figures out?

In my head, both examples would lead to no IHT.

Assuming couples allowance as per the £1m house from 2020.
IHT allowance (excluding main home) is £325k each (£650 for couples). So, £500k cash after downsizing would be within the couples allowance, wouldn't it?

Even if the first to die of the couple used their whole IHT allowance of £325k then that would leave a taxable estate of £175k (£500k - £325k) which @40 would be a £70k tax bill.

Happy to be shown the errors in my thinking here.
 
POAH said:
given that 69 is a hobbie for you, I think it will be your cheek
Click to expand...
THANKS! I'm in enough trouble for starting that without you making reference to it as well :p
 
POAH said:
given that 69 is a hobbie for you, I think it will be your cheek
Click to expand...

You're lucky the snake is first in line for a damn good thrashing :LOL:
 
Cobra said:
THANKS! I'm in enough trouble for starting that without you making reference to it as well :p
Click to expand...

You, however are not so lucky! :bat:
 
Cobra said:
♪♪ she's making a list and checking it twice ♪♪

:D
Click to expand...
You, sir, are just digging your your own reptilian grave :LOL:
You know this, yes? ;)
 
viv1969 said:
Ok, your cheeky ass just made the list! :bat: :LOL:
Click to expand...
Promises, promises. ;)
miss-whiplash.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top