andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-05-11 10:12 pm
andrewducker) wrote2010-05-11 10:12 pm
Withholding judgement
I'm waiting to see what the Lib Dems and Conservatives have agreed.
If they have managed to get the bottom end of Income Tax raised to £10,000 through, prevented the rise in Inheritance Tax exemptions, and stopped the ridiculous marriage giveaway then that's a good start. If they can get a referendum on voting reform in, then I'll actually be happy.
The Lib Dems were never going to get a majority. And that means working with one of the other parties in order to get some of what they wanted. Labour were refusing to negotiate (last rumour I heard was that ID cards were a major sticking point), so if they can get what they want out of the Tories then I'm right behind them.
The Tories cannot pass _anything_ without Lib-Dem backing. I'm hoping that this takes the worst edges off of them. If it doesn't - if they just back the Tories irrespectively and don't get electoral reform, then they deserve to go down in flames.
Now to wait for the details...
(Some stuff here, and Robert Peston's take here)
If they have managed to get the bottom end of Income Tax raised to £10,000 through, prevented the rise in Inheritance Tax exemptions, and stopped the ridiculous marriage giveaway then that's a good start. If they can get a referendum on voting reform in, then I'll actually be happy.
The Lib Dems were never going to get a majority. And that means working with one of the other parties in order to get some of what they wanted. Labour were refusing to negotiate (last rumour I heard was that ID cards were a major sticking point), so if they can get what they want out of the Tories then I'm right behind them.
The Tories cannot pass _anything_ without Lib-Dem backing. I'm hoping that this takes the worst edges off of them. If it doesn't - if they just back the Tories irrespectively and don't get electoral reform, then they deserve to go down in flames.
Now to wait for the details...
(Some stuff here, and Robert Peston's take here)
no subject
And yes, it's hard to afford to buy houses - which is a good reason to tax people who have more money and redistribute it to people who have less - which is what inheritance tax contributes towards.
no subject
Also, if gifts are not income taxed, why should inheritance be different? I don't really understand that.
If the inheritor already owned a house, then fair enough, they don't need another one and can pay tax on it.
it's hard to afford to buy houses - which is a good reason to tax people who have more money and redistribute it to people who have less
part 2 doesn't fix part 1.
i suppose i don't consider a first house as "money". it's an investment, yes, but it's a special case. with one you have somewhere secure to live, without it you're either homeless or at the whim of a landlord. i have no problems with cash, shares/etc, chattels being taxable. and because of rising house values, inheritance tax is and will continue to encompass more people, it's not just keeping the super rich in check.
no subject
Gifts are taxed - if the person dies within 7 years of giving it to you.
The idea behind inheritance tax is to prevent some people (those with parents worth more than £325,000) from automatically doing far better than others. That's still significantly more than the average house price in the UK, and the tax only kicks in at that level, so if the home is worth £350,000 then the tax only applies on the last bit of it.
It currently hits the richest 6% of the population - and that levels seems absolutely fine to me.