Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

Pre-Budget Report

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
So, the goverment made the worse off in the country poorer this year with essentially increasing their taxes.

Now, they increased fuel duty.

BUT they are increasing the inhertiance tax threshold??

For fucks sake!!!!!!!! Enjoy it middle england, grrrrrrrr :rolleyes:
«1

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I do think that inheritance tax should go up, but £600k is too much.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So, the goverment made the worse off in the country poorer this year with essentially increasing their taxes.

    Now, they increased fuel duty.

    BUT they are increasing the inhertiance tax threshold??

    For fucks sake!!!!!!!! Enjoy it middle england, grrrrrrrr :rolleyes:

    I'm not sure you can get pissy with Middle England, they get plenty fucked elsewhere.

    Inheritance tax should be increased in line with the ridiculous rise in property prises. I think that's a sensible move.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    I do think that inheritance tax should go up, but £600k is too much.

    Should it be set at £1 above what you are likely to inherit? ;)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not sure you can get pissy with Middle England, they get plenty fucked elsewhere.

    Inheritance tax should be increased in line with the ridiculous rise in property prises. I think that's a sensible move.

    :yes:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not sure you can get pissy with Middle England, they get plenty fucked elsewhere.

    Inheritance tax should be increased in line with the ridiculous rise in property prises. I think that's a sensible move.

    Which is why the Tories thought it up, and why Labour nicked it. Watching the Chancellor's announcement on T.V., you can actually see Brown nodding his head as he struggles (and fails) to hold back a wily smirk while rubbing his grubby hands together.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    Which is why the Tories thought it up, and why Labour nicked it. Watching the Chancellor's announcement on T.V., you can actually see Brown nodding his head as he struggles (and fails) to hold back a wily smirk while rubbing his grubby hands together.

    I could smell Labour's desperation... the inheritiance tax seemed to have a smack of panic, and I think they've also taken the domicile tax as well (despite rubbishing it only days before)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's a budget of panic, done for an election and to stop the Tories getting the high line.

    I think non-domiciles should be taxed more- 18% is still lower than the basic rate of income tax- and the 10% tax rate should be returned and extended.

    But all the people who'd earn enough to notice the 10% tax rate will vote Labour anyway, cause they're as thick as shit, so of course Penfold's gonna go after middle england.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's an interesting example.

    Don't do anything and you alienate voters by not picking up on what is clearly a good idea.

    Do something and you stand accused of stealing someone else's "clothing".

    What GB has proved here is that it's better to be in Govt than on the opposition benches because you can act on ideas whereas opposition can only pontificate.

    If opposition then refuse to put forward policy ideas they stand accused of not having any, or worse in putting their election and power seeking ahead of the best interests of the country.

    Shrewed.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not sure you can get pissy with Middle England, they get plenty fucked elsewhere.

    Inheritance tax should be increased in line with the ridiculous rise in property prises. I think that's a sensible move.

    if it followed property inflation it'd be a £430k limit not 600k(700k in 2 years)

    why should it follow house price inflation anyway, most of that is due to speculation anyway
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The inheritance tax threshold should only go up for those who bought their home before 2000.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    The inheritance tax threshold should only go up for those who bought their home before 2000.

    why?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They should either say they believe in inheritance tax and keep it as it is (possibly increasing in line with house prices), or they should say that they think it's unfair and scrap it altogether.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They should either say they believe in inheritance tax and keep it as it is (possibly increasing in line with house prices), or they should say that they think it's unfair and scrap it altogether.

    Why? it's perfectly possible to believe in an inheritance tax and think that the current threshold is too low.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why is the threshold too low though ???

    I'm not trying to sound condensending as I know some of you will know, but does everyone realise that you only get taxed on the amount OVER the threshold?

    I.e. previously, the first 300K is tax-free and after that amount you pay tax, ??

    Surely 300K tax free is enough for anyone? :rolleyes:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    People probably think it's too low because they think it's unfair that the money is getting taxed twice. (taxed before the person got it and then being taxed again when they've received it)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Right, but the person who's getting the money hasn't been taxed on it have they? No, so they should get taxed on it.

    e.g. My employer gets paid x amount from someone and pays their tax, they give me my portion and I pay my tax, if I had an employee, I'd pay them and they'd pay their tax.

    Why would this be any different?

    Mr X earns money, pays his tax, buys house with whats left. He dies, house is sold, Son Y gets 400K, gets taxed....... ?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Territt wrote: »
    why?

    You're right- it shouldn't go up at all.

    It's another tax cut sop to the whingeing middle classes that everyone else is going to have to cough up for.

    But those who bought their houses before the boom aren't necessarily the rich who should be paying out.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    You're right- it shouldn't go up at all.

    It's another tax cut sop to the whingeing middle classes that everyone else is going to have to cough up for.

    But those who bought their houses before the boom aren't necessarily the rich who should be paying out.

    And the people who bought houses after the boom are in fact loaded, and not crippled with debt... :rolleyes:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    You're right- it shouldn't go up at all.

    It's another tax cut sop to the whingeing middle classes that everyone else is going to have to cough up for.

    But those who bought their houses before the boom aren't necessarily the rich who should be paying out.

    what about the huge capital gains they've made, they've made money without lifting a finger since they've owned the house

    and to anyone who says it's a double tax, it is, but so is VAT and all goods' duties like petrol and cigarettes

    and it's a fair tax as well, it only gets unearned income
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you went out and earnt £300k you would expect to be taxed on it, given you dont have to do anything other than be nice to someone when they are drawing up their will I think its only fair you should pay tax on the amount above that figure.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    If you went out and earnt £300k you would expect to be taxed on it, given you dont have to do anything other than be nice to someone when they are drawing up their will I think its only fair you should pay tax on the amount above that figure.

    Why not just tax all of it then? Why set an arbitrary limit?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why not just tax all of it then? Why set an arbitrary limit?

    That is frankly a good question, I'm not really sure I have the answer, I suppose I can see both sides and I would not only like to receive a legacy but also pass one down.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why not just tax all of it then? Why set an arbitrary limit?

    Why not tax all of it? Well it's not fair to tax everything from someone when they die.

    Why set an arbritrary limit? Well it's an amount that will only usually catch those with a lot of money.

    To be honest, I've changed my mind, and I'd leave the limit where it is.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Why not tax all of it? Well it's not fair to tax everything from someone when they die.

    Why set an arbritrary limit? Well it's an amount that will only usually catch those with a lot of money.

    To be honest, I've changed my mind, and I'd leave the limit where it is.

    Agree with all Kermits answers here..
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I got a letter off the new chancellor a few weeks ago, talking about the average person as a whole was better off because of the new simplified taxes, and that he couldnt comment on what might be my individual case
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ah it's only a 6.5bn 'black hole' and he's / was such a prudent chancellor so what's there to worry about? he's gotta pay for iraq and pfi somehow you know, next trick is to raise the retirement age to 80 so everyone dies before they get to claim their pension, that way they don't notice he's already spent it :lol:

    p.s. we still arguing about inheritance tax? nothing changes round here eh...
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    i t weon't be anythin new at the end of that day, we've heard it al. before . the countyies fine, don't panic, look at this good! ingore that bad bits! glosos over them!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i said on here that i had become so disilusiooned with politics that i would never vote for any of them ever again ...i'm sticking to it.
    under a labour government the poor have become poorer the rich richer and now the tories are talking about taxing the rich ...err ...isn't that socialism?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    under a labour government the poor have become poorer the rich richer and now the tories are talking about taxing the rich ...err ...isn't that socialism?


    And the people in the middle are still fucked anyway. I earn a decent wage and a third of it at least is gone before it gets to the bank. Robbing bastards.
Sign In or Register to comment.