A lot of millionaires also earn the money they do through exploitation and tax havens. Which are actually interlinked with inheritance tax as it's an immoral and unethical way of adding to the already plentiful amounts of money they have which future generations benefit from. How is that fair? afctw, it's not a hard concept. Those who earn more have more to contribute to society and to restore the inequality gap. But they still have plenty of disposable income left over or assets which they could liquidise if necessary. You need to look at it relatively rather than in pure figures.
By the way has anyone read Corbyns manifestos? (One is below?) http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/winning_with_a_greener_future Whether you agree or not, they are all very logical, all costed and everything can be paid for/budgeted and very sensible. And not dramatically left wing. I dont know if its just me but all i hear from the others is - Yvette - vote for me because im a woman (ive yet to hear her give a specific policy or say where she stands on an issue). Liz - if you believe in me then Vote for the Tories Andy - ill go whichever way the wind is blowing. Im totally loyal to labour party, unless the labour party votes fir corbyn - in which case ill go against democracy and try and bring the party down from the inside.
The current inheritance threshold is set at 500k per person before the 40% tax kicks in, this lowers to 325k (the previous limit) if the estate left behind is worth over 2M. A very large number of households in London fall into this bracket and that's not people who are mega rich or living fancy lifestyles, that's people working hard to earn a living and have a decent house. So a detached house in greater London owned by a single mother which with the house price rises is worth 600-700k, but would have been bought years ago for far less. The mother dies and her children are left looking for 40-80k or be forced to sell the house and try and find somewhere new to live. Lots of houses in London are worth far more. Before the inheritance tax changes the children would be looking to find well over 100k. The point I'm trying to make is the threshold as it is catches all sorts of people how aren't the super rich but regular hard working people. Edit: I appreciate I've used a rather extreme example here lol, but it was done purposely to draw attention to the point I was trying to make!
So if they have to liquidate assets and move the family to deal with the additional taxes that's fine but it's outrageous that rising house prices force poorer people out of there communities? Is that not a touch hypocritical? Lots of the people caught in the inheritance tax threshold don't have lots (edit: realised lots could mean any amount really!) if disposable income. Particularly before the increase.
So ill ask you again - why do you think its fairer to increase the burden on the very poor (lots are hard working individuals), sometine forcing them out of their houses or into food banks rather pay a little bit more in inheritance tax?
I think its a bit disingenuous to compare the fewer people who will be effected to the degree you state with inheritance tax to the current social clesnsing of poor and minority people from inner cities across england and the south of England in general
My point isn't one based on the current financial climate it's on what I think is a tax that is wrong and effects loads of people it isn't intended to. What's going on in food banks has no bearing on my judgement of thinking it was wrong to have the inheritance tax threshold set so low. The increase puts the level to a point where it's less likely to catch the wrong people but I think it should probably be even higher.
The points are linked though - as i linked them in one of my previous post. The inheritance tax cut in the main benefits the rich. While at the same time the majority(all?) the cuts (to supposedly cut the deficit) are hitting the poor. If you want to save the treasury money then surely it is fairer to increase the inheritance tax (which of course will negatively effect people) than cut benefits, job prospects, training, housing benefits, child benefits ect for the poor
If it's not ok for poorer people to be pushed from there homes and communities by rising house prices why is it ok for the same thing to happen to richer people? Because it's rising property prices that have pushed many of those people above the threshold in the first place.
There are people working in those public sector jobs dealing with all those cuts who are also, due to where they live, dragged into the threshold to pay inheritance tax. Increasing the threshold just helps those at the lower end of the boundary who aren't the mega rich. Anyone over 2Million still pays at the 325k threshold.
Crab mentality. Everyone's stupidly trying to drag down those who are protected by a strong union, rather than seeing how joining one would be an advantage. People would prefer it if the tube workers were on zero hours contracts and minimum wage, just to make them feel better, for some reason. Of course he has. Blair's a Thacherite and Corbyn's suggested that he could face a war crimes trial over Iraq. They're completely opposed to each other, both politically and in terms of Blair's personal interests. I'd be opposed to somebody that wanted to lock me up, too.
Its hardly the same for some (not rich) people to be moved out of their house (ive already said that) though as theyve inherited money, then they do have a options and ability to live in the same area. All im saying is that it's a lot different from the huge amount of poor people who will be unable to live in large areas of England in the next few years. Also not sure why you thing I'm against the rich, when I've got nothing against them. There's to suggest that in me asking to stop demomising the poor and to have a tax system based on equality and fairness
sorry to bring it back, but to have to return to this comment, but I'm still slightly incredulous that you are suggesting it's ok to tax normal houses and normal people but anyone whose born with a silver (or platinum) spoon in their mouth or can afford a mansion should get a free pass! Especially at a time of austerity (self imposed or otherwise)
How in that comment have I suggested it's ok to tax normal houses but not expensive houses? I've suggested I think it's stupid to make someone have to pay to live in there own house that they've paid for.
