Tories lost the 2019 election among working age adults

[cheesyboy]

It depends whether you think people should have the right to pass on their wealth to their descendants. A certain amount of inheritance tax is reasonable, but as I do think that people should have the right to pass on their wealth as they see fit I certainly wouldn't go as far as your first sentence.

I think we need to get a bit more radical to solve what is a generational fairness crisis.

We're heading to a position where a large proportion will receive many hundreds of thousands of £ (1 in 5 retired households being millionaires), where others will simply never be able to even buy a home. None of which is reflective of their own efforts.

My preference would be something like a 90% IHT rate, after relevant costs of death and probate, and then give all people at 18 a £25,000 bond which can be cashed in for certain purchases (house, qualifications, business startup etc), or otherwise just money in their pocket at a later age cutoff.

Current IHT raises £5billion+ per year, so it's easily affordable on a 90%IHT.

It's clearly not a grey-vote winner, but I see only benefits to society.

 

[cheesyboy]

I work very hard (usually 12 to 15 hours a day) to build a stable life for my wife and children

Society shouldn't require 12-15 hour days to build a stable life. There can be a better way

 

[Dolph]

I think we need to get a bit more radical to solve what is a generational fairness crisis.

We're heading to a position where a large proportion will receive many hundreds of thousands of £ (1 in 5 retired households being millionaires), where others will simply never be able to even buy a home. None of which is reflective of their own efforts.

My preference would be something like a 90% IHT rate, after relevant costs of death and probate, and then give all people at 18 a £25,000 bond which can be cashed in for certain purchases (house, qualifications, business startup etc), or otherwise just money in their pocket at a later age cutoff.

Current IHT raises £5billion+ per year, so it's easily affordable on a 90%IHT.

It's clearly not a grey-vote winner, but I see only benefits to society.

So your plan is to take away one of the few ways many people do get the finance to afford to own a home?

I'm not sure that will work the way you think it will.

For a start, you've just massively increased the incentives for alternative arrangements that avoid IHT, while at the same time raising house prices, because at best all you've done is slightly increased demand, but done nothing about the supply limitations which are the main driver of prices in the UK.

Don't get me wrong, our current government plans are stupid and ineffective, but the above is not going to work either.

 

[Housey]

Society shouldn't require 12-15 hour days to build a stable life. There can be a better way

So what do you suggest.

Easy to say there should be a better way, how would you make it better?

 

[Dolph]

Society shouldn't require 12-15 hour days to build a stable life. There can be a better way

Surely that depends both on the life you want and so on?

Saying that society shouldn't require it is something I generally agree with, but society also shouldn't prevent rewarding dedication and commitment.

 

[413x]

I think inheritance tax should be high.
It's one of the big dividers in society.

 

[cheesyboy]

So your plan is to take away one of the few ways many people do get the finance to afford to own a home?

Yes. Albeit not for that aim.

Sustaining an unsustainable property system, where people are increasingly stratified into those with familial capital and those without, is not a long term plan.

Transferring old peoples wealth to SOME younger people is not a solution to most not being able to aspire to build a recognised family life.

 

[Dolph]

Yes. Albeit not for that aim.

Sustaining an unsustainable property system, where people are increasingly stratified into those with familial capital and those without, is not a long term plan.

Transferring old peoples wealth to SOME younger people is not a solution to most not being able to aspire to build a recognised family life.

Nor is taking wealth into the state for inefficient redstribution.

If you want to fix the housing situation, then you actually have to fix the supply/demand imbalance in the UK market.

 

[cheesyboy]

Surely that depends both on the life you want and so on?

Saying that society shouldn't require it is something I generally agree with, but society also shouldn't prevent rewarding dedication and commitment.

Well we don't know his definition of 'stable', perhaps he means 'aspirational'. It's a philosophical question as to whether living aspirationally is worth the drain on family time and health of 12-15 hour days, and whether people should have the choice or whether they should be protected from themselves. I'm pretty agnostic on that, tbh.

But families should be able to live 'stable' without 12-15 hour days.

 

[cheesyboy]

Nor is taking wealth into the state for inefficient redstribution.

If you want to fix the housing situation, then you actually have to fix the supply/demand imbalance in the UK market.

I wasn't trying to specifically fix the housing situation. That wasn't what my post was about.

It's probably less efficient to just allow intra-familial wealth transfer, though, tbh. Assuming the aim is overall generational fairness or meritocracy, or just giving more people the opportunity to succeed.

 

[413x]

We've all seen the benefit inheritance has on people's lives. You only need a small ealry life inheritance/gift to be set for life.

Personally I don't think it should be that way

 

[200sols]

We've all seen the benefit inheritance has on people's lives. You only need a small ealry life inheritance/gift to be set for life.

Personally I don't think it should be that way

Then there is no incentive to work hard and leave anything for your kids. You sound bitter because you didn't get any inheritance TBH.

 

[Narj]

Then there is no incentive to work hard and leave anything for your kids. You sound bitter because you didn't get any inheritance TBH.

I've never been left anything and I'm not bitter about it. I can totally understand why people want to give their kids a better start in life (possibly better than they themselves had).

I agree btw - what's the point in working for anything if you can't leave it to someone or something that will benefit when you're gone?

Anyway isn't the point of an inheritance tax threshold so that only the wealthier pay any? In theory no working class person is likely to get hit by it.

 

[stockhausen]

I wasn't trying to specifically fix the housing situation. That wasn't what my post was about.
. . .
We're heading to a position where a large proportion will receive many hundreds of thousands of £ (1 in 5 retired households being millionaires), where others will simply never be able to even buy a home.
. . .

I would be interested to see how the "value" of property altered when the "Right to buy" was introduced by Thatcher in the '80s and Councils were discouraged from building Social Housing

 

[cheesyboy]

Then there is no incentive to work hard and leave anything for your kids. You sound bitter because you didn't get any inheritance TBH.

People can want things to be better in ways that are worse for them personally.

As a household, we're likely to get quite a way upwards of a quarter million inheritance in the next 15-20 years or so (actually not all that much in the scheme of inheritances, really). In all likelihood, I'd pass much of it on to my kids to help them out, as I'm not going to need it all that much.

But I'd still prefer it to be substantially taxed and redistributed to young people. Such as in my earlier scheme suggestion.

 

[MissChief]

We've all seen the benefit inheritance has on people's lives. You only need a small ealry life inheritance/gift to be set for life.

Personally I don't think it should be that way

Tbh it’s often the only way some are getting on the property ladder, inheriting their parents house.

 

[Dis86]

Holding wealth is a benefit in itself. Otherwise, why not life-gift it to avoid IHT in the first place?

Because it may be set aside for a future use. Plus, I'm not certain, but can't you only life gift very limited amounts without having to pay tax?

 

[200sols]

People can want things to be better in ways that are worse for them personally.

As a household, we're likely to get quite a way upwards of a quarter million inheritance in the next 15-20 years or so (actually not all that much in the scheme of inheritances, really). In all likelihood, I'd pass much of it on to my kids to help them out, as I'm not going to need it all that much.

But I'd still prefer it to be substantially taxed and redistributed to young people. Such as in my earlier scheme suggestion.

250k isn't much really. I don't see much benefit in taxing such small sums heavily myself. I'd rather see it harder to hide away vast wealth rather than tax the smaller sums more.

 

[cheesyboy]

Because it may be set aside for a future use.

Exactly. It's a benefit to hold. Security.

Plus, I'm not certain, but can't you only life gift very limited amounts without having to pay tax?

Gift as much as you want, you just have to live long enough afterwards for it not to still be considered part of your estate.

 

[cheesyboy]

250k isn't much really. I don't see much benefit in taking such small sums heavily myself. I'd rather see it harder to hide away vast wealth rather than tax the smaller sums more.

It's the sort of amount that sets you up extremely well if you get it fairly early. But, again, there's no fairness in that.

Give everyone a starter fund, and take away the rest of the familial inheritance transfer. Allow the creme to rise to the top, not just those with unearned advantage.