Rishi Sunak ‘staring defeat in the face’ after double by-election blow

HAYSIE

Poll Shows Rishi A Path To Victory.

Essexphil

The Great Con Con is up and running again.

People support the abolition of any tax-until someone points out that another tax has to rise to take its place.

All monies passed to a surviving spouse are tax free. The first £325,000 of an estate is tax free. It's only over that where Inheritance Tax kicks in. IHT currently raises £7 Billion a year, but (thanks to the windfall from sky high house prices) that is set to double over the next decade.

A 1p in the £ rise in basic Income Tax rates raises about £4.5 Billion. Due to the rapidly rising IHT, would need a 2% rise in Income Tax.

So. A Multimillionaire and his Billionaire mates is suggesting a man on average wage pays more (on top of already record amounts) so their kids can receive £Billions without paying a penny in tax.

Ever felt conned?

HAYSIE

green_beer

£1-40 and £1-30 for a daily newspaper. How much does the sun sell for these days? I mind it being about 25p.

HAYSIE

green_beer said:

£1-40 and £1-30 for a daily newspaper. How much does the sun sell for these days? I mind it being about 25p.

85p.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-66990581

Bean81

Essexphil said:

The Great Con Con is up and running again.

People support the abolition of any tax-until someone points out that another tax has to rise to take its place.

All monies passed to a surviving spouse are tax free. The first £325,000 of an estate is tax free. It's only over that where Inheritance Tax kicks in. IHT currently raises £7 Billion a year, but (thanks to the windfall from sky high house prices) that is set to double over the next decade.

A 1p in the £ rise in basic Income Tax rates raises about £4.5 Billion. Due to the rapidly rising IHT, would need a 2% rise in Income Tax.

So. A Multimillionaire and his Billionaire mates is suggesting a man on average wage pays more (on top of already record amounts) so their kids can receive £Billions without paying a penny in tax.

Ever felt conned?

This.

On IHT, I completed a joint, mirrored will with my long-term partner recently. Apparently, marriage is the only part of English law where being married matters as far as the tax-free part goes. It's time we removed that if partnership can be easily proved e.g. you have a child together and/or jointly-own a property.

The Daily Mail is truly awful. Who did they survey here? Reporting the results from a survery of bigoted Daily Mail readers isn't worth the paper it's written on. Anybody that supports the Rwanda policy is truly awful.

Essexphil

Bean81 said:

Essexphil said:

The Great Con Con is up and running again.

People support the abolition of any tax-until someone points out that another tax has to rise to take its place.

All monies passed to a surviving spouse are tax free. The first £325,000 of an estate is tax free. It's only over that where Inheritance Tax kicks in. IHT currently raises £7 Billion a year, but (thanks to the windfall from sky high house prices) that is set to double over the next decade.

A 1p in the £ rise in basic Income Tax rates raises about £4.5 Billion. Due to the rapidly rising IHT, would need a 2% rise in Income Tax.

So. A Multimillionaire and his Billionaire mates is suggesting a man on average wage pays more (on top of already record amounts) so their kids can receive £Billions without paying a penny in tax.

Ever felt conned?

This.

On IHT, I completed a joint, mirrored will with my long-term partner recently. Apparently, marriage is the only part of English law where being married matters as far as the tax-free part goes. It's time we removed that if partnership can be easily proved e.g. you have a child together and/or jointly-own a property.

The Daily Mail is truly awful. Who did they survey here? Reporting the results from a survery of bigoted Daily Mail readers isn't worth the paper it's written on. Anybody that supports the Rwanda policy is truly awful.

What you say is true. And yet, perversely, for millions of couples, due to not taking advice, the married couple's children can end up worse off than the unmarried ones.

I'm not for a second suggesting that this is true for all married couples. But people should consider this.

Suppose a married couple and an unmarried couple both have kids, and both have total assets (joint and separately combined) of £1 million.

If Husband dies and leaves all to surviving spouse, then no tax on 1st death. But potentially tax on 2nd death of £(1million minus 325,000) x 40% = £270,000 tax bill.

Whereas, if use the £325,000 tax free slice on 1st as well as 2nd deaths, tax would be £(1 million -650,000) =£140,000.

And unmarried people tend to take advice. Whereas a lot of married couples forget the tax advantages of planning for 2nd death.

And that is before all the other perfectly legal things to reduce the IHT. Because, in reality, a person taking advice on an estate worth £10 million tends to pay less tax than one worth £1 million who does not.

On the Rwanda thing. It all depends on how you ask the question.

If you ask "should illegal immigrants be sent to Rwanda rather than costing the taxpayer money" you will get one answer.

Whereas if you add in the costs of deportation as opposed to actually processing them here, you will get a very different answer.

A bit like asking in a referendum whether we should be in or out of the EU. As opposed to asking to vote on the actual way we really will leave as opposed to staying.

Bean81

Good points, Phil. Yet another example of how our tax system is inconsistent and doesn't make a lot of sense.

My value upon death right now predominantly comes from my death in service benefit and my pension pot that I've been lumping into, so the marriage thing wrr to IHT isn't material right now, but could be in 10 years.

HAYSIE

Bean81

Braverman is the devil incarnate. Ditto the Daily Mail. How much are the Tories paying them to write that kind of headline?

Enut

Essexphil said:

Bean81 said:

Essexphil said:

The Great Con Con is up and running again.

People support the abolition of any tax-until someone points out that another tax has to rise to take its place.

All monies passed to a surviving spouse are tax free. The first £325,000 of an estate is tax free. It's only over that where Inheritance Tax kicks in. IHT currently raises £7 Billion a year, but (thanks to the windfall from sky high house prices) that is set to double over the next decade.

A 1p in the £ rise in basic Income Tax rates raises about £4.5 Billion. Due to the rapidly rising IHT, would need a 2% rise in Income Tax.

So. A Multimillionaire and his Billionaire mates is suggesting a man on average wage pays more (on top of already record amounts) so their kids can receive £Billions without paying a penny in tax.

Ever felt conned?

This.

On IHT, I completed a joint, mirrored will with my long-term partner recently. Apparently, marriage is the only part of English law where being married matters as far as the tax-free part goes. It's time we removed that if partnership can be easily proved e.g. you have a child together and/or jointly-own a property.

The Daily Mail is truly awful. Who did they survey here? Reporting the results from a survery of bigoted Daily Mail readers isn't worth the paper it's written on. Anybody that supports the Rwanda policy is truly awful.

What you say is true. And yet, perversely, for millions of couples, due to not taking advice, the married couple's children can end up worse off than the unmarried ones.

I'm not for a second suggesting that this is true for all married couples. But people should consider this.

Suppose a married couple and an unmarried couple both have kids, and both have total assets (joint and separately combined) of £1 million.

If Husband dies and leaves all to surviving spouse, then no tax on 1st death. But potentially tax on 2nd death of £(1million minus 325,000) x 40% = £270,000 tax bill.

Whereas, if use the £325,000 tax free slice on 1st as well as 2nd deaths, tax would be £(1 million -650,000) =£140,000.

And unmarried people tend to take advice. Whereas a lot of married couples forget the tax advantages of planning for 2nd death.

And that is before all the other perfectly legal things to reduce the IHT. Because, in reality, a person taking advice on an estate worth £10 million tends to pay less tax than one worth £1 million who does not.

On the Rwanda thing. It all depends on how you ask the question.

If you ask "should illegal immigrants be sent to Rwanda rather than costing the taxpayer money" you will get one answer.

Whereas if you add in the costs of deportation as opposed to actually processing them here, you will get a very different answer.

A bit like asking in a referendum whether we should be in or out of the EU. As opposed to asking to vote on the actual way we really will leave as opposed to staying.

@Essexphil your understanding of IHT and IHT nil rate bands is a little off here.

The IHT nil rate band is currently £325,000, there is also a residence nil rate band of up to £175,000 provided that a main residence property (or the proceeds from it) passes to direct descendants (e.g. children). Also these nil rate bands, if not used on first death, will pass to the surviving spouse to use. So if everything, including a residential property, passes to the spouse on first death and then to the children on second death, the amount the children can inherit without paying any inheritance tax is £1 million.

You would be surprised the number of times solicitors forget or are simply not up to date with IHT rules, which is surprising considering they charge fairly handsomely for probate work.

This can provide a useful planning opportunity when people remarry after being widowed, allowing their second spouse to pass up to £500,000 to children on first death whilst still allowing them to use the 'inherited' nil rate bands from their first spouse when they die. This can result in up to £1,500,000 passing free of inheritance tax to beneficiaries. I once got called a smart **** (albeit in jest) by a solicitor when I explained this to him. At that time there was no residence nil rate band but that little bit of knowledge saved the beneficiaries of the estate over £100,000 in IHT when one of my clients died, suffice to say all of the beneficiaries are now also clients.

@Bean81 you could enter into a civil partnership with your partner (you do not now have to be same sex to do so) and this gives the same IHT rights as being married i.e. the ability to pass your entire estate to your civil partner free of IHT and also for you to pass IHT nil rate bands as a married couple can.

Please be aware that this is not specific advice and you should seek your own financial and legal advice where appropriate.

Bean81

Thanks @Enut , that's very helpful.

Essexphil

Enut said:

Essexphil said:

Bean81 said:

Essexphil said:

The Great Con Con is up and running again.

People support the abolition of any tax-until someone points out that another tax has to rise to take its place.

All monies passed to a surviving spouse are tax free. The first £325,000 of an estate is tax free. It's only over that where Inheritance Tax kicks in. IHT currently raises £7 Billion a year, but (thanks to the windfall from sky high house prices) that is set to double over the next decade.

A 1p in the £ rise in basic Income Tax rates raises about £4.5 Billion. Due to the rapidly rising IHT, would need a 2% rise in Income Tax.

So. A Multimillionaire and his Billionaire mates is suggesting a man on average wage pays more (on top of already record amounts) so their kids can receive £Billions without paying a penny in tax.

Ever felt conned?

This.

On IHT, I completed a joint, mirrored will with my long-term partner recently. Apparently, marriage is the only part of English law where being married matters as far as the tax-free part goes. It's time we removed that if partnership can be easily proved e.g. you have a child together and/or jointly-own a property.

The Daily Mail is truly awful. Who did they survey here? Reporting the results from a survery of bigoted Daily Mail readers isn't worth the paper it's written on. Anybody that supports the Rwanda policy is truly awful.

What you say is true. And yet, perversely, for millions of couples, due to not taking advice, the married couple's children can end up worse off than the unmarried ones.

I'm not for a second suggesting that this is true for all married couples. But people should consider this.

Suppose a married couple and an unmarried couple both have kids, and both have total assets (joint and separately combined) of £1 million.

If Husband dies and leaves all to surviving spouse, then no tax on 1st death. But potentially tax on 2nd death of £(1million minus 325,000) x 40% = £270,000 tax bill.

Whereas, if use the £325,000 tax free slice on 1st as well as 2nd deaths, tax would be £(1 million -650,000) =£140,000.

And unmarried people tend to take advice. Whereas a lot of married couples forget the tax advantages of planning for 2nd death.

And that is before all the other perfectly legal things to reduce the IHT. Because, in reality, a person taking advice on an estate worth £10 million tends to pay less tax than one worth £1 million who does not.

On the Rwanda thing. It all depends on how you ask the question.

If you ask "should illegal immigrants be sent to Rwanda rather than costing the taxpayer money" you will get one answer.

Whereas if you add in the costs of deportation as opposed to actually processing them here, you will get a very different answer.

A bit like asking in a referendum whether we should be in or out of the EU. As opposed to asking to vote on the actual way we really will leave as opposed to staying.

@Essexphil your understanding of IHT and IHT nil rate bands is a little off here.

The IHT nil rate band is currently £325,000, there is also a residence nil rate band of up to £175,000 provided that a main residence property (or the proceeds from it) passes to direct descendants (e.g. children). Also these nil rate bands, if not used on first death, will pass to the surviving spouse to use. So if everything, including a residential property, passes to the spouse on first death and then to the children on second death, the amount the children can inherit without paying any inheritance tax is £1 million.

You would be surprised the number of times solicitors forget or are simply not up to date with IHT rules, which is surprising considering they charge fairly handsomely for probate work.

This can provide a useful planning opportunity when people remarry after being widowed, allowing their second spouse to pass up to £500,000 to children on first death whilst still allowing them to use the 'inherited' nil rate bands from their first spouse when they die. This can result in up to £1,500,000 passing free of inheritance tax to beneficiaries. I once got called a smart **** (albeit in jest) by a solicitor when I explained this to him. At that time there was no residence nil rate band but that little bit of knowledge saved the beneficiaries of the estate over £100,000 in IHT when one of my clients died, suffice to say all of the beneficiaries are now also clients.

@Bean81 you could enter into a civil partnership with your partner (you do not now have to be same sex to do so) and this gives the same IHT rights as being married i.e. the ability to pass your entire estate to your civil partner free of IHT and also for you to pass IHT nil rate bands as a married couple can.

Please be aware that this is not specific advice and you should seek your own financial and legal advice where appropriate.

You are quite right.

My Probate theory is 40 years old. And never done this in real life-law is so massive that no-one can even be competent (never mind good) at more than a fraction of it.

So let me correct the bits that are wrong from my example.

The pensioner from my example will have a tax-free slice that is variable. £325,000 for his own estate. A potential extra £325,000 if he was married (or similar) and his Wife did not use her slice. A potential extra £175,000 or £350,000 if leave house to kids or grandkids. And possibly an extra £500,000 if married more than once with issue.

And the proposed change to IHT will only benefit the people worth way more than £1 million.

Not the fault of people who take advantage of the system. But why on earth should someone who is left money by their Uncle pay IHT (or more IHT) when someone left money from their Dad does not?

And why should inherited wealth be treated so much more favourably than going out and earning it?

HAYSIE

Grim poll reveals what people really think of Rishi Sunak


https://uk.yahoo.com/news/grim-poll-reveals-what-people-really-think-of-rishi-sunak-175657893.html

HAYSIE

HAYSIE

Sir Keir Starmer hails ‘seismic’ win for Labour over SNP in Rutherglen and Hamilton West


https://uk.yahoo.com/news/sir-keir-starmer-hails-seismic-054556933.html

HAYSIE

HS2: The transport schemes Sunak promised which are already built or cancelled
The prime minister's pledge to reinvest in the North and Midlands are under the spotlight after some schemes appear to either already exist or have been cancelled before.


https://uk.yahoo.com/news/hs2-rishi-sunak-already-cancelled-built-before-112540487.html

HAYSIE

HAYSIE

HAYSIE

Johnson’s barrister ex-wife to become Labour’s ‘whistleblowing tsar’ for women


https://uk.yahoo.com/news/johnson-barrister-ex-wife-become-212059681.html

HAYSIE