Continuation General UK Politics V Suella Strikes Back

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Nessie

It's the English who love a toff. The rest of the UK hate them.

Depends on the toff.

I quite like the current Viscount Thurso for example, but I hate most of them. To be blunt it's not that I hate toffs, it's that I hate people who think toffs are better people than non-toffs. A lot of those people tend to be toffs, but not all of them.

What I really hate is Tories.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Garrison

There is a complicating factor when it comes to the family home. this from the BBC page on the topic:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36014533

And, as The Don says, if one spouse dies, the other doesn't pay inheritance tax. When they die, the estate goes to the children, and the allowance of both parents is added together, at the current rates. In my case, even though my dad died over thirty years ago, when my mother died at the beginning of last year, the allowance was twice the current amount, so £650,000. Since the only significant asset was my mum's house, which was worth less than that, my sister and I were not liable to pay any inheritance tax.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Nessie

This seems odd;

https://news.sky.com/story/inheritan...ition-12969642

"less than 4% (3.73%) of estates paid inheritance tax in the 2020 to 2021 year."

That is out of c500,000 deaths. Considering tax is paid on estates over £350k and the average house is worth £285k, you would think far more people have estates worth over £350k. There must be a lot of avoidance going on.

Why, for most people the house will be their only significant asset, and that is an average, in many places in the UK the price of a reasonable property is well below that amount. Given how generous the tax breaks are I'm astonished it's as much as 4% that pay something.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Darat

Why, for most people the house will be their only significant asset, and that is an average, in many places in the UK the price of a reasonable property is well below that amount. Given how generous the tax breaks are I'm astonished it's as much as 4% that pay something.

A lot of those who pay inheritance tax don't end up paying too much. If the estate is worth £700k and you are eligible for double relief (as many are) then you'll end up paying £20k, or less than 3% of the total value of the estate.

I realise that coming up with that much money may be an issue if the assets are illiquid (a single property), probate is lengthy and there's a desire to keep the assets in the family but that's an edge case of an edge case IMO.

[Nessie]

I suppose I am surprised, because my father has told us there will be inheritance tax to pay when he dies, which means he must be way better off than we thought. He was a university lecturer. How did he get so rich? Maybe his calculations are wrong, but he has an accountant. Are we going to be subject to an unexplained wealth investigation? Or is my future one of a luxurious retirement when he goes? Time will tell.

Edit - I would add, I am against removing inheritance tax. When someone is that rich, they can afford to give the tax man a cut and still leave family with life changing inheritances.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by GlennB

"He attended between the ages of 13 and 18 and was denied a scholarship there but rose to be head boy and edited the school newspaper, The Wykehamist. " Eastern Daily Press

"Sunak himself has spoken of the “considerable sacrifices” that were made to afford the vast fees (currently £41,000 a year), when he did not gain a scholarship place. "

The Independent

I wasn't aware that Sunak had corrected the information since it was circulated he got a scholarship. Possibly an assumption, given priority is given to the offspring of alumni and those already with siblings there (not to mention limited number of places in any year). For example, see here:

Quote:

Rishi Sunak is an "absolutely standard" man who is not from a "privileged background at all", Matt Hancock has told LBC's Tonight with Andrew Marr.

<snip>

"He went to Winchester School, that's pretty privileged."

Mr Hancock argued Mr Sunak got a scholarship to the school, which charges over £45,000 per year for boarding pupils.

"He got a scholarship to Winchester School and he got to Oxford on his own merit," said the MP.

Andrew argued: "I'm sorry, Winchester and Oxford, however clever he was, is not an underprivileged background."

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presente...-says-hancock/


Apparently the £42K pa fee is for boarders, day pupils £33K pa. Sunak's parents drove him there every day (from Southampton) and he didn't get home until 9:00pm, it says elsewhere.

I suppose Sunak had to correct this misperception or someone else would have. I wonder what could be more mortifying to a social climber: admitting you failed your scholarship entrance exam or that you were too poor to apply without a scholarship. Hah!

[Nessie]

Sunak will think that those sacrifices are why he deserves to be so rich, whilst forgetting the sacrifices imposed on people who can only get minimum wage, but essential jobs, and whom Tories then demonise for having to go to food banks. Why should they not also be rich? And by rich, I mean, they have enough money to know they can feed themselves, keep warm over winter, have a holiday once a year, afford Sky TV and to go to the football. They are not greedy and avaricious like he is. Wealth to them is just being able to do the basics for a nice quality of life.

[Mojo]

Lifestyle choice, innit?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I suppose I am surprised, because my father has told us there will be inheritance tax to pay when he dies, which means he must be way better off than we thought. He was a university lecturer. How did he get so rich? Maybe his calculations are wrong, but he has an accountant. Are we going to be subject to an unexplained wealth investigation? Or is my future one of a luxurious retirement when he goes? Time will tell.

Edit - I would add, I am against removing inheritance tax. When someone is that rich, they can afford to give the tax man a cut and still leave family with life changing inheritances.

Because my mother died in Finland, I was subjected to inheritance tax, which here, is banded, so anything less than IIRC circa €20K it's zero and then structured similarly to income tax. It wasn't anything that you would notice. Much fairer than the wealthy in the UK knowing precisely how to avoid paying any such tax at all. Only people inheriting over €1m were relatively hard hit but then most would have surely sorted out their affairs well before death from old age.

Perhaps your dad was a saver. My mother had a secret savings account with an enormous sum of money accumulated from having bought a house in the 60's and just hanging onto the proceeds when moving. Even my stepfather knew nothing of it. She worked at John Lewis Partnership and was hardly a high earner. On the plus side, here, it is not the spouse who is next of kin but the children. This creates issues sometimes, too, in second or third marriages when some kid from a previous relationship pops up and is entitled to take at least 50% automatically by law, leaving the widow or widower somewhat out of pocket. This happened with Johnny Halliday with French/USA residence issues (USA being similar to the UK, the spouse is next of kin/ in France, it's the kids, causing a legal battle with the current US wife which his kids won). Moral: be careful where you die as that is where the law applies.

Hunt's fiddling about with Inheritance Tax IMV is a nothing burger, as is the silly Stop the Boats focus, as if there is nothing else more serious and pressing to concentrate on. The inheritance tax issue affects very few people, as on death, the surviving spouse automatically gets the estate tax free anyway. Very few individuals get caught out by it, they have Wealth Management Accountants. In the meantime, there are 66,000,000 other people in the UK and Hunt p!sses about with a minority issue.

Word from 'informed sources' - probably from Jeremy Hunt himself - is that he is planning to screw over the pensioners triple-lock in one way or another.

[Andy_Ross]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Depends on the toff.

I quite like the current Viscount Thurso for example, but I hate most of them. To be blunt it's not that I hate toffs, it's that I hate people who think toffs are better people than non-toffs. A lot of those people tend to be toffs, but not all of them.

What I really hate is Tories.

I like old Lord Guisborough 'Lordy' as everyone calls him. He's always been pleasant. He's ancient now and his son is set to I herit. He's a complete ******** and has lived in Monaco for the last 25 years.
A lot of estate tenants (more than half the shops around the market and lots of houses and cottages around the older part of town) are dreading him taking over and what he might do to the estate.

It might be that he just leaves it to the estate managers and is happy to keep on living in Monaco. Most of the income is from the grouse shooting on the moors and profits from the Hall, it's been an expensive hotel and spa for the last 40 years.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Nessie

This seems odd;

https://news.sky.com/story/inheritan...ition-12969642

"less than 4% (3.73%) of estates paid inheritance tax in the 2020 to 2021 year."

That is out of c500,000 deaths. Considering tax is paid on estates over £350k and the average house is worth £285k, you would think far more people have estates worth over £350k. There must be a lot of avoidance going on.

Transfers to a surviving spouse or Civil Partner are usually exempt and the ever increasing value of property that you reference means that a significant number of people have houses that are valuable but not proportional amounts of other assets, especially if they've been retired & living off what liquid assets they do have for a number of years.


Add in the odd example like the Duke of Westminister who as the country's biggest landowner owns a disproportionate number of houses yet paid virtually no inheritance tax when he received them on his father's death due to creative use of trusts (you can bet all other high net worth individuals are also well aware of this). And of course, the Queen's wealth was passed down without taxation.


ETA: Ninja'd by Zooterkin, Darat & others

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Darat

Why, for most people the house will be their only significant asset, and that is an average, in many places in the UK the price of a reasonable property is well below that amount. Given how generous the tax breaks are I'm astonished it's as much as 4% that pay something.

And if it as issue, well then you adjust the thresholds, not cut the rate of the tax. And in case anyone has forgotten the personal allowances for Income Tax has been frozen until 2028, meaning that taxes for working people are going up not down.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Sunak will think that those sacrifices are why he deserves to be so rich, whilst forgetting the sacrifices imposed on people who can only get minimum wage, but essential jobs, and whom Tories then demonise for having to go to food banks. Why should they not also be rich? And by rich, I mean, they have enough money to know they can feed themselves, keep warm over winter, have a holiday once a year, afford Sky TV and to go to the football. They are not greedy and avaricious like he is. Wealth to them is just being able to do the basics for a nice quality of life.

It's part of a wider disconnect from 'ordinary ' peoples lives, the aspect that stands out to me is the 'get another job' language that's getting a lot of play at the moment, it smacks of people who just don't get that most of us aren't offered £250k a year for eight hours a week's work for a hedge fund founded by dodgy Russians. Or a similar sum for 200 words a week in the Telegraph, or a £100k to talk divisive bollox on a foreign funded right wing propaganda channel. Or that most of us are in jobs where if they're paying us they damn well expect us to be turning up and working for them, not someone else (and the less you're paid the more strictly you're going to be held to this). Remember when George Osborne was being paid, very handsomely, for seven jobs paying between £21 & £640k pa?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

It's part of a wider disconnect from 'ordinary ' peoples lives, the aspect that stands out to me is the 'get another job' language that's getting a lot of play at the moment, it smacks of people who just don't get that most of us aren't offered £250k a year for eight hours a week's work for a hedge fund founded by dodgy Russians. Or a similar sum for 200 words a week in the Telegraph, or a £100k to talk divisive bollox on a foreign funded right wing propaganda channel. Or that most of us are in jobs where if they're paying us they damn well expect us to be turning up and working for them, not someone else (and the less you're paid the more strictly you're going to be held to this). Remember when George Osborne was being paid, very handsomely, for seven jobs paying between £21 & £640k pa?

The "get another job" criticism of the poor by wealthy Tories has backfired, as that criticism is being used against them. I saw it first, when Tories complained about the removal of tax relief for private schools. The advice they were given was to "get another job" so they could afford the increased fees.

I don't read many opinion columns by journalists, or ex MPs, and none by those who are out to stir hate. I wish more people would ignore them and find their lives are far less stressful as they are not being wound up any more.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Please keep your transphobic rubbish out of this thread.

Indeed, especially given that the Tories are planning to take away everyone's rights regardless of gender.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

And, as The Don says, if one spouse dies, the other doesn't pay inheritance tax. When they die, the estate goes to the children, and the allowance of both parents is added together, at the current rates. In my case, even though my dad died over thirty years ago, when my mother died at the beginning of last year, the allowance was twice the current amount, so £650,000. Since the only significant asset was my mum's house, which was worth less than that, my sister and I were not liable to pay any inheritance tax.

Transferring assets to the surviving spouse or civil partner without inheritance tax seems fair to me. Especially pensions and the family home. But it is right that my brother and I should pay it on my father's estate. Even though it's his house that makes it.

I'm not sure the rationale for agricultural assets getting special treatment - and how that transfers to the owners of large estates.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

There were two things that scuppered Labour in 2019, demanding that a general election would be called when it was and insisting that the second referndum proposal would be the centrepieces of the campaign.

Amazingly enough (/s) both of those were the brainchildren of Starmer, but then again any time you see a Labour campaign being sabotaged, it's the party's right wing who are sticking their clogs in the machinery.

Right now, I see people claiming to be Corbyn supporters saying they won't vote Labour while Starmer is in charge.

[Andy_Ross]

Apparently Rishi was a bit concerned at Jeremy Hunt's idea for an inheritance tax giveaway to the rich, but Hunt assured him that it will be fully funded by cuts to disability benefits so it's OK.

[P.J. Denyer]

Richard Tice has announced that only his Reform Party can beat Labour & the Tories should stand aside. Even GBeebies weren't having it!

[MarkCorrigan]

Even among the swivel eyed loons that make up Reform UK, Tice is a special breed of swivel eyed loon.

[P.J. Denyer]

The most swiveliest.

[P.J. Denyer]

I hear he's signing up for ”I'm an election candidate, get my deposit out of here"

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Historically, yes. The upper class have been demonising the poor and passing cruel poor laws since Elizabethan (as in Liz the First) times. The present lot of Tories appear to want to reverse working and life conditions for the working class back to Victorian times. I think that appeal to a fantasy past of upper class England is also in part responsible for Brexit and the notion of a new commonwealth. It is nostalgia gone mad.

Goes back further than that, the original magna carta was an agreement between the king and aristocracy which screwed over the commons.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Tory filth to push through benefits squeeze to help the rich

https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-hu...e-tax-13010904

"Jeremy Hunt considers major benefits squeeze to help slash inheritance tax"

This is the plan till the next general election, that they know they will lose. Funnel as much money from the poor to the rich.

They're also betting that Starmer won't reverse any of the tax cuts they bring in. If I were running a turf accountancy I'd give you 100/1 on on this scenario playing out.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

They're also betting that Starmer won't reverse any of the tax cuts they bring in. If I were running a turf accountancy I'd give you 100/1 on on this scenario playing out.

deleted - misunderstood

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

It's part of a wider disconnect from 'ordinary ' peoples lives, the aspect that stands out to me is the 'get another job' language that's getting a lot of play at the moment, it smacks of people who just don't get that most of us aren't offered £250k a year for eight hours a week's work for a hedge fund founded by dodgy Russians. Or a similar sum for 200 words a week in the Telegraph, or a £100k to talk divisive bollox on a foreign funded right wing propaganda channel. Or that most of us are in jobs where if they're paying us they damn well expect us to be turning up and working for them, not someone else (and the less you're paid the more strictly you're going to be held to this). Remember when George Osborne was being paid, very handsomely, for seven jobs paying between £21 & £640k pa?

I'd say if you added up the number of hours Sunak has actually worked in his life, he asn't reached eight yet.

Oh and those articles "written" by the likes of BoJo the Clown, they're all ghosted. The most amount of work he puts in for his "writing" is a five minute phone call agreeing the general outline of his bylined article with the journalist who writes it.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Right now, I see people claiming to be Corbyn supporters saying they won't vote Labour while Starmer is in charge.

Why should they? All he is is a milquetoast tory.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by GlennB

deleted - misunderstood

And I thought I had it worded clearly too.

[Mongrel]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Right now, I see people claiming to be Corbyn supporters saying they won't vote Labour while Starmer is in charge.

It's probably a similar mix of trolls trying to stir dissension and genuine, starry-eyed idealists that comprised the Bernie Bro's

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

Why should they? All he is is a milquetoast tory.

Because the alternative is the actual hardliner Tories?

Sure, it would be great if the Lib Dems stood an actual chance in hell of getting elected, I like a lot of their policies, particularly social policy, but they don't. Not in large enough numbers.

The choice for the country is Labour or the Tories. Even if Labour isn't what it should be (and it isn't) I'd still take them over the actual ******* Tory party any day.

What happens if a large chunk of Labour voters don't vote Labour? The Tories win. Again and again and again...

[Darat]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Because the alternative is the actual hardliner Tories?

Sure, it would be great if the Lib Dems stood an actual chance in hell of getting elected, I like a lot of their policies, particularly social policy, but they don't. Not in large enough numbers.

The choice for the country is Labour or the Tories. Even if Labour isn't what it should be (and it isn't) I'd still take them over the actual ******* Tory party any day.

What happens if a large chunk of Labour voters don't vote Labour? The Tories win. Again and again and again...

The idea that even if you think Labour are decaffeinated Tories you think they are worse than the caffeinated Tories is beyond me. It takes some rather strange mental gymnastics.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

The most swiveliest.

The beadiest swiveliest-eyed.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

And I thought I had it worded clearly too.

No biggie, but the 100-1 on on was confusing.

100-1 that X happens means it's highly unlikely.
100-1 on that X happens means is highly likely.

What does 100-1 on on X happening mean ... ?

It's why bookies generally use about rather than on when describing the event.

/bookiespeak

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Darat

The idea that even if you think Labour are decaffeinated Tories you think they are worse than the caffeinated Tories is beyond me. It takes some rather strange mental gymnastics.

Not if you belong to the extreme left, from their distant position moderates like Starmer and opportunistic thieves like Sunak just blur together.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Garrison

Not if you belong to the extreme left, from their distant position moderates like Starmer and opportunistic thieves like Sunak just blur together.

Weirdly though, I'm probably what would be considered "extreme left". I self describe as a Socialist with a capital S. On a lot of political tests I come out as borderline communist economically, and I am very, very progressive socially.



I voted for Starmer in the leadership election. He wasn't the one I most closely aligned with, but he was the one I felt most electable of the options.

I don't agree with everything he does. Indeed I don't agree with a lot of his positions. I find him too far to the right, and I dislike some of his social positions as well. I think he's too beholden to business interests, and I don't think he's the best option for a Labour PM in the whole of the party.

I'd vote him in in a heartbeat if the alternative was one more second of the miserable, borderline fascist, performatively cruel and utterly moronic Tory party.

[Filippo Lippi]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Weirdly though, I'm probably what would be considered "extreme left". I self describe as a Socialist with a capital S. On a lot of political tests I come out as borderline communist economically, and I am very, very progressive socially.



I voted for Starmer in the leadership election. He wasn't the one I most closely aligned with, but he was the one I felt most electable of the options.

I don't agree with everything he does. Indeed I don't agree with a lot of his positions. I find him too far to the right, and I dislike some of his social positions as well. I think he's too beholden to business interests, and I don't think he's the best option for a Labour PM in the whole of the party.

I'd vote him in in a heartbeat if the alternative was one more second of the miserable, borderline fascist, performatively cruel and utterly moronic Tory party.

Word, MC!.

One has to be in a position to help the people that need help and that means being electable.

[Nessie]

Labour are the least worst option.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Garrison

Not if you belong to the extreme left, from their distant position moderates like Starmer and opportunistic thieves like Sunak just blur together.

I've "belonged" to the extreme left, I was thrown out of the Labour party because of belonging to another extreme leftwing party. No one I knew back then would have thought of not voting for Labour because they weren't left wing enough therefore allowing the Tories to get back into power. Of course you can find some extreme nutters especially given the internet's priming to bring those extremists to our attention but I'm sure they are no more numerous than they were decades ago. You'll find those that will pretend that they aren't voting for a given reason but they wouldn't have got off their arses to vote anyway. It's really the old canard of "they are all the same so why bother voting" excuse for not voting for the internet age.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Labour are the least worst option.

Which makes them also the best option.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Darat

Which makes them also the best option.

I would prefer a more choice with Green and Lib Dem and PR.