Search results

I'd look to take more on Capital Gains Tax. The headline about banker's paying less tax than their cleaners was because 20% basic rate tax plus 9% / 11% NI is less than 28% top rate of tax on Capital Gains on investments like share options. I can't believe Labour haven't made more of the top...

What's taking the piss is paying for the fallout of banker's greed with the money from dead people. £325K threshold frozen for 6 years, twice as many Estates paying IHT as prior to 2009. I'm going to stop talking about this now, it's a marmite issue.

I agree, there's nothing that scares small businesses like crossing the VAT threshold or, in some cases, when they find out they've missed the mandatory threshold. At least you're alive when you have to pay it.

Because the deceased has already paid income tax, National Insurance, stamp duty and VAT on what is left their whole adult life. Many would agree the government have already had their fair whack. I'll grant you that Estates of £1million plus deserve some IHT taxation, but at £325K threshold...

I don't blame Clegg for looking a bit glum because Osborne treated that hour as a party political broadcast for the Tory Party. I don't think he mentioned the words "Liberal Democrats", "Danny Alexander" or "My colleagues in coalition" once.

I'm talking about the individual who has accumulated the wealth in the first place. People make decisions when they are alive about what they intend to leave behind, and they do this with the tax consequences in mind. Yes, the beneficiaries pay the IHT on the Estate, but it is still the Estate...

The chances are £NIL. They have enough budget available NOT to have to do this. The Irish economy is in crisis, ours is merely in some difficulty. VAT at 20% is already a burden on small businesses selling to non-VAT registered customers, so 23% would represent a big price increase for them...

Capital Gains is tax on someone's secondary wealth, i.e. second homes, stock and shares etc. The top rate of CGT is 28%. IHT is on their home and what's left in their accounts to cover their living costs, and it's charged at 40%.

Anyone earning £100K in the year of their demise is probably living in a house worth £325K so the £NIL rate band will have already been used up on their death. We'll have to agree to disagree. I personally think tax on tax is fundamentally wrong - I don't believe that a person should earn...

But with a threshold of only £325,000 it's tax on their main home. Anything on top gets taxed at 40%. Where's the incentive to save there?

Believe me, the whole accountancy profession is waiting for the detail.

But it is tax ON TAX. If you want to redistribute wealth then do it via income tax which happens once, don't do it via IHT. As things stand someone can earn £100,000, pay £45,000 in income tax and £2,000 in NI, then drop dead and pay a further £21,200 in IHT on the £53,000 that the government...

Why is it a horrible policy? A person has died and therefore passing on their assets to their families and loved ones. These assets have been acquired out of TAXED income. Taxing them a second time on death is a regrettable form of taxation, not raising the IHT threshold for 6 years is...