ChatterBank1 min ago
Tories in a spin?
Just when people were adjusting to the 'hug a hoody' Tory spiel resulting in huge losses of the electorate at the polls they have now done a Ginger Rogers routine and spun through 180%.
But the previous two lost elections concentrated on tax cuts and were given a thumbs down by the voters.
So what is their new policy? Inheritance tax is only paid by 6% of the population but this will be abolished. Is the thinking behind the tax policies related to the failed trickle down ideas of an old regime? Give more money to the wealthy and the poorer will benefit?
What should the tories do to regain power?
But the previous two lost elections concentrated on tax cuts and were given a thumbs down by the voters.
So what is their new policy? Inheritance tax is only paid by 6% of the population but this will be abolished. Is the thinking behind the tax policies related to the failed trickle down ideas of an old regime? Give more money to the wealthy and the poorer will benefit?
What should the tories do to regain power?
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by kwicky. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There's something very desparate about these new proposals to me. Could this be the death-throes of Cameron's leadership?
I have to say, I do agree on the inheritance tax idea, though. I don't see how the government has a right to the money my father leaves me when he's allready had the bejeezers taxed out of it allready. Although I'm a good deal more averse to the idea of a Cameron government...
What could the Tories do? Well, New Labour really got in in '97 by adopting several Tory policies, so it's difficult to see what they can do. They can't really shift to the left without infuriating their traditional membership and supporters, and their old beliefs are relatively unpopular in most places but the South-East.
Having said that, Brown just might take Labour back to the left, and thus the Conservatives could regain ground among their traditional supporters.
I have to say, I do agree on the inheritance tax idea, though. I don't see how the government has a right to the money my father leaves me when he's allready had the bejeezers taxed out of it allready. Although I'm a good deal more averse to the idea of a Cameron government...
What could the Tories do? Well, New Labour really got in in '97 by adopting several Tory policies, so it's difficult to see what they can do. They can't really shift to the left without infuriating their traditional membership and supporters, and their old beliefs are relatively unpopular in most places but the South-East.
Having said that, Brown just might take Labour back to the left, and thus the Conservatives could regain ground among their traditional supporters.
Here's the link to the story, must say, i'm quite impressed, problem is, is it a panic solution, and will they keep to it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/news.html?in_article_id=476134&in_page_i d=1770
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/news.html?in_article_id=476134&in_page_i d=1770
Personally I've always thought that abolishing the inheritance tax would be a bad step.
I know that's an unpopular view but that income has to come from somewhere, there's no free lunch. If it went on the basic rate then your average tax payer would be subsidising those who are expecting to inherit hundreds of thousands of pounds.
But putting that to one side you have to read between the lines - firstly they're not promissing to do it, just try to do it and secondly it's not really abolition rather tinkering.
As far as I saw they were suggesting to abolish inhreitance tax on houses but you'd still pay tax (a revised capital gains I think they called it) on the other parts of the estate.
Who would win and who would lose?
Well if you had a really big house you'd be a winner but if you were expecting to inherit an estate under the current threshold you'd probably pay tax on inheritance that wasn't property which you didn't do before.
So if you're expecting a large in heritance you'd be quids in, if a more modest one you're quids out.
Who says leopards change their spots - sounds like the same old Tories to me - safeguarding the interests of capital and vested interest.
I know that's an unpopular view but that income has to come from somewhere, there's no free lunch. If it went on the basic rate then your average tax payer would be subsidising those who are expecting to inherit hundreds of thousands of pounds.
But putting that to one side you have to read between the lines - firstly they're not promissing to do it, just try to do it and secondly it's not really abolition rather tinkering.
As far as I saw they were suggesting to abolish inhreitance tax on houses but you'd still pay tax (a revised capital gains I think they called it) on the other parts of the estate.
Who would win and who would lose?
Well if you had a really big house you'd be a winner but if you were expecting to inherit an estate under the current threshold you'd probably pay tax on inheritance that wasn't property which you didn't do before.
So if you're expecting a large in heritance you'd be quids in, if a more modest one you're quids out.
Who says leopards change their spots - sounds like the same old Tories to me - safeguarding the interests of capital and vested interest.
seems obvious that parents should be able to leave their property to their children, as it's been going on for millennia... but I don't actually know that it is. That's what keeps vast expanses of the country in the hands of descendants of robber barons who took it by force centuries ago, even though the descendants have done nothing whatever to merit it. Fine if they want to hand on the property while they're still alive. (That's what my parents did.) But after their death, I think the state can have a say. I think families should retain the rights to the bodies of the dead (as I occasionally say on threads about organ donation); but their land and their property? I respect Richard Branson for what he's built up; but what have his kids done to deserve to inherit it all?
that income has to come from somewhere, there's no free lunch. If it went on the basic rate then your average tax payer would be subsidising those who are expecting to inherit hundreds of thousands of pounds.
No, every taxpayer would be paying for stuff. And the wealthier members of society pay more taxes at the basic rate than do the 'average taxpayer' (which is as it should be).
Plus, that money has allready had the snot taxed out of it.
No, every taxpayer would be paying for stuff. And the wealthier members of society pay more taxes at the basic rate than do the 'average taxpayer' (which is as it should be).
Plus, that money has allready had the snot taxed out of it.
That's what keeps vast expanses of the country in the hands of descendants of robber barons who took it by force centuries ago, even though the descendants have done nothing whatever to merit it
What rubbish. Cases like that are a tiny minority. My father has worked his fingers to the bone to get the money that he now has, and the government's had plenty of it allready (which as I say, I don't really have any objection to in itself). What right does the treasury have to interfere with what he leaves to me when - God forbid - the time comes?
What rubbish. Cases like that are a tiny minority. My father has worked his fingers to the bone to get the money that he now has, and the government's had plenty of it allready (which as I say, I don't really have any objection to in itself). What right does the treasury have to interfere with what he leaves to me when - God forbid - the time comes?
-- answer removed --
a minority of cases, Kromovaracun, but a lot of land: I believe about two-thirds of Britain is in the hands of only about 6,000 people. (Other people may be able to correct my figures on this.) How many of them do you suppose have truly earned this?
My parents worked hard too and passed on their property to their children while they were still alive. I'm quite happy for them, and your parents, and the Duke of Ditchwater's, to be able to do this tax-free. But I can't see why this freedom should last after death.
And in general I don't see why the rich shouldn't pay more tax than the poor. This however was not the Tory view: their last great tax wheeze, the poll tax, was basically intended to force you to pay the same sum as the Duke. I imagine abolishing inheritance tax will be equally Duke-friendly.
My parents worked hard too and passed on their property to their children while they were still alive. I'm quite happy for them, and your parents, and the Duke of Ditchwater's, to be able to do this tax-free. But I can't see why this freedom should last after death.
And in general I don't see why the rich shouldn't pay more tax than the poor. This however was not the Tory view: their last great tax wheeze, the poll tax, was basically intended to force you to pay the same sum as the Duke. I imagine abolishing inheritance tax will be equally Duke-friendly.
I believe about two-thirds of Britain is in the hands of only about 6,000 people. (Other people may be able to correct my figures on this.)
I don't see what inheritance tax does to allay this. If you want to change that, you need peerage reform. Plus, you concede that in terms of money that people inherit, cases like these are a minority. How is it fair to tarnish everyone inheriting a certain amount of money with the same brush as those receiving aristocratic inheritence?
I'm quite happy for them, and your parents, and the Duke of Ditchwater's, to be able to do this tax-free. But I can't see why this freedom should last after death.
I'm not sure I understand your argument here. I don't see how the government has any extra right to money it's allready taxed when it's being posthumously given rather than while still alive. What about the case of a sudden/unexpected death?
And in general I don't see why the rich shouldn't pay more tax than the poor.
Neither do I. Don't get me wrong, I understand that the rich should be paying to the benefit of the poor, I just don't see that it should be in the form of taking money that's allready been paid for regardless of the wishes of the people who want to leave it to their loved ones.
I don't see what inheritance tax does to allay this. If you want to change that, you need peerage reform. Plus, you concede that in terms of money that people inherit, cases like these are a minority. How is it fair to tarnish everyone inheriting a certain amount of money with the same brush as those receiving aristocratic inheritence?
I'm quite happy for them, and your parents, and the Duke of Ditchwater's, to be able to do this tax-free. But I can't see why this freedom should last after death.
I'm not sure I understand your argument here. I don't see how the government has any extra right to money it's allready taxed when it's being posthumously given rather than while still alive. What about the case of a sudden/unexpected death?
And in general I don't see why the rich shouldn't pay more tax than the poor.
Neither do I. Don't get me wrong, I understand that the rich should be paying to the benefit of the poor, I just don't see that it should be in the form of taking money that's allready been paid for regardless of the wishes of the people who want to leave it to their loved ones.
1 to 13 of 13
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News27 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles42 mins ago
