Budget 2015

[BLOCK F]

I wonder how many people watched or heard Ed M's budget response? Conclusive proof why Cameron won't debate him head to head. Short, funny and very pointed. Maybe too little too late though

Have you been on the tincture?

 

[Ernest]

Institute of Directors: This was a solid and responsible Budget. Few chancellors would be able to resist the temptation to binge on a £22bn windfall from the sale of bank shares this close to an election. By using it to pay down our national debt, George Osborne has shown commendable discipline.

TIGA Video Games Group: TIGA applauds the new support promised by the chancellor in the Budget for the UK video games sector. Following the achievement of Games Tax Relief, TIGA's top priority has been the achievement of a new Prototype Fund to enable start-up studios to access finance and develop playable prototypes. TIGA also called for the maintenance of the Skills Investment Fund, a measure that enables more studios to invest in skills, training and workforce development.

RAC: "With fuel duty revenue making up about 5% of the Treasury's tax income there was never going to be a huge giveaway as the chancellor still desperately needs motorists' money. But with the latest figures showing that almost a million of the poorest households see a quarter of what they spend go on buying and running a car, the continued freeze is very welcome."

Scottish Whisky Association: The industry is raising a glass to George Osborne and his Treasury team, as well as to all those who have supported our campaign over the last two decades.

How much do they donate to the Tories ?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Get in!

I will now have to give very serious consideration as to who I vote for now.

Well that would be a first

 

[Pavilionaire]

'Their' !? But they are dead!

The person who dies doesn't pay the tax.

The people paying the tax are those inheriting, they are gaining that wealth.

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 of the deceased.

Anyway, why not look at one of the main reasons some elderly people have this "wealth" in the first place? People are living longer and so have to save more in case of long-term care costs. Why should people set, say £200K, aside in case they need their arse wiped every hour at £500 per week only to die a couple of years in and the government trouser £60K of IHT. Other people fritter away their wealth then rely on the state to look after them in their old age.

 

[MattBackHome]

[MENTION=232]Simster[/MENTION] is right.

 

[Danny-Boy]

Watching the coverage of Osborne's statement, the camera angle kept Clegg in shot for nearly all the time, he looked very down Didn't respond to any comments by looking across to Labour.

Whereas as soon as Millie responded Danny Alexander was then smirking and merrily quipping behind presumably to Cameron.

The Home Secretary stood out in a scarlet dress, whereas most of the Tories wore blue suits and/or ties.

 

[Bold Seagull]

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 of the deceased.

Anyway, why not look at one of the main reasons some elderly people have this "wealth" in the first place? People are living longer and so have to save more in case of long-term care costs. Why should people set, say £200K, aside in case they need their arse wiped every hour at £500 per week only to die a couple of years in and the government trouser £60K of IHT.

But they've set that aside to look after themselves which that money has achieved. If they've then passed on £325k, and paid £60k in IHT, that must mean they also passed on £90k to their chosen beneficiaries. They died looked after as well as they could be, and left £415k. Why should the beneficiary not then pay tax on the benefit they've received? They never paid tax on that money.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Watching the coverage of Osborne's statement, the camera angle kept Clegg in shot for nearly all the time, he looked very down Didn't respond to any comments by looking across to Labour.

Whereas as soon as Millie responded Danny Alexander was then smirking and merrily quipping behind presumably to Cameron.

The Home Secretary stood out in a scarlet dress, whereas most of the Tories wore blue suits and/or ties.

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.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

One problem with IHT, is that it has to be paid within 6 months of the death. Given that probate has to be granted which takes time, and even worse if there is no will, the offspring quite often have to borrow to pay the tax before receiving the inheritance. More expensive properties also take time to sell, even when probate is granted.

 

[Simster]

One problem with IHT, is that it has to be paid within 6 months of the death. Given that probate has to be granted which takes time, and even worse if there is no will, the offspring quite often have to borrow to pay the tax before receiving the inheritance. More expensive properties also take time to sell, even when probate is granted.

I do agree that 6 months isn't long enough. I'd have thought a grace period of one tax year might be fairer.

 

[Pavilionaire]

But they've set that aside to look after themselves which that money has achieved. If they've then passed on £325k, and paid £60k in IHT, that must mean they also passed on £90k to their chosen beneficiaries. They died looked after as well as they could be, and left £415k. Why should the beneficiary not then pay tax on the benefit they've received? They never paid tax on that money.

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 IMHO the government are taking the piss.

 

[El Presidente]

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 money and the government have two bites that take two-thirds of those earnings.

As an accountant I'm more concerned with how this country is going to pay sufficient tax without the mechanism of a Tax Return, in particular how sole traders, partnerships and limited company directors are going to be able to accurately report their true taxable profit on a monthly basis, which is what this government is aiming for.

Annual Tax Returns ARE a pain, but not as much of pain as having to file accounts EVERY MONTH.

Whilst I think you have some very valid points, VAT is tax on a taxed income, but that never gets a mention, and it's pretty regressive too.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Whilst I think you have some very valid points, VAT is tax on a taxed income, but that never gets a mention, and it's pretty regressive too.

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.

 

[beorhthelm]

But they've set that aside to look after themselves which that money has achieved. If they've then passed on £325k, and paid £60k in IHT, that must mean they also passed on £90k to their chosen beneficiaries. They died looked after as well as they could be, and left £415k. Why should the beneficiary not then pay tax on the benefit they've received? They never paid tax on that money.

why should they *have to* pay tax on it? really thats what is at the heart of the IHT debate, the very essence and principle of the right of the state to tax. in general taxation we sort of let it go by, we accept we need to pay taxes for services, and muddle along with it. IHT highlights the raw principles of taxation because it is essentially saying the state owns you and all you do even when you die: if you've saved more than x amount, HMRC is going to take a cut.

 

[El Presidente]

He may be my constituency MP, but I was very disappointed that Osborne failed to mention the Cheshire based adult film industry, and gave ZERO additional efforts to those either making films and therefore helping hard working local families, or those studying it for their PhD #KnutsfordMilfAction

 

[Simster]

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 IMHO the government are taking the piss.

Not really, no. And in any case, where would you add tax to make up for the shortfall? Income tax? Penalise hard work. VAT? Horribly regressive.

 

[Hotchilidog]

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 IMHO the government are taking the piss.

Are they really? In 2013 according to the parliament UK briefing papers only 6% of estates were worth over £325,000. That is hardly taking the piss. It's another sop to either the already inherently wealthy who just continue on their own merry way with their family wealth, something the current cabinet would know an awful lot about. Or those who have benefited from owning a property in a particularly desirable part of the country which is UNEARNED income.

What's taking the piss is thinking that £325,000 is not a lot of money.

 

[The Oldman]

No, the person receiving it, unless exempt would need to pay tax on the gift.

http://www.money.co.uk/article/1004329-how-do-i-gift-money-without-being-taxed.htm

Not sure I understand this 7 year rule. See this section from the above

Does it make any difference when I give money as a gift?
Yes, though this rule really only makes a practical difference for the elderly and people who are terminally or seriously ill. That is, any gift given more than seven years before your death is automatically exempt from Inheritance Tax. In addition, any gift given between three and seven years before your death will be liable for Inheritance Tax at a reduced rate - this is known as 'Taper Relief'."

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Removing annual tax returns seems bizarre. Why replace one task with many?

 

[El Presidente]

why should they *have to* pay tax on it? really thats what is at the heart of the IHT debate, the very essence and principle of the right of the state to tax. in general taxation we sort of let it go by, we accept we need to pay taxes for services, and muddle along with it. IHT highlights the raw principles of taxation because it is essentially saying the state owns you and all you do even when you die: if you've saved more than x amount, HMRC is going to take a cut.

I think you make a valid point. It would make far more sense to give all the money on death to charity, so that it is used for the benefit of those in need or who have been disadvantaged. Giving it to politicians to subsidise illegal wars and vanity projects, or feckless offspring who have done nothing themselves to earn the wealth, is not a fair use of the the wealth generated.