• Thank you all very much for sharing your time with us in 2025. We hope you all have a safe and happy 2026!

AND HERE WE GO - THE 2019 GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 18645
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue in Munich said:
BiM as a taxpayer should have the same access to end of life care as those who have chosen not to make any such provision. Why should BiM be forced to move away from his home, his friends and his hobbies in order to avoid being mugged in old age by the taxman? The system is utterly wrong in this respect. And please don't suggest BiM downsizes to stay in the same area as the only beneficiaries from that will be the lawyers and estate agents, given the property prices round here.

And the IFA (who says don't touch equity release with a barge pole) is paying his annual visit tomorrow.
Click to expand...
This is the same scenario for all parties, the difference is were the different parties decide to step in.
 
Blue in Munich said:
BiM as a taxpayer should have the same access to end of life care as those who have chosen not to make any such provision. Why should BiM be forced to move away from his home, his friends and his hobbies in order to avoid being mugged in old age by the taxman? The system is utterly wrong in this respect. And please don't suggest BiM downsizes to stay in the same area as the only beneficiaries from that will be the lawyers and estate agents, given the property prices round here.

And the IFA (who says don't touch equity release with a barge pole) is paying his annual visit tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Then you have made your choices and the system is equitable to all .. if you don’t want to react to it that’s your choice but don’t complain about it.
Also I would point out that most of those who pee it up the wall have a lower life expectancy and generally don’t stress the care system after retirement.. before retirement yeah they stress the system to breaking point having witnessed some silliness in A and E this week with my 7 yr old son.
But you can look at it like this and this will really upset you... in life your contributions have not been enough and that needs balancing in death .. that’s pretty horrible, perhaps it’s worth chasing the Billionaires for taxes and Amazon, Facebook, google, boots, Vodafone etc ...
 
harpo_72 said:
I think you get taxed on the amount over the threshold value.
If your being wise you will downsize and seek to invest the money in some form of savings /annuity, you can also set isa’s for grandchildren or children and make lump sum contributions up to a certain value.
In essence there are loads of methods of getting your hard earned to those you would like to benefit and reduce your pay out to the tax man.
Don’t accuse me of cheating the tax man, these loops have been left to be exploited.
I think your getting yourselves a little hot under the collar over nothing that cannot be resolved with a little strategic thinking.
Click to expand...

No, not the point. Why the hell should you have to go to lengths you suggest
to ensure that Corbyn government doesn't get your assets. They are not easy, cheap steps to take.
The whole principle of such a tax is wrong. Take two working families living in detached bungalows in, say, The midlands.
Both being bought on mortgages.
Children now gone, both have just husband and wife.
One has saved throughout: the other has had a good time and in order to keep up the holidays and nights out etc, the other mortgages the home further, instead of owning it outright.
They die (husband then wife, usual order) within a couple of years of each other , under Corbyn Labour Government
The first widow 's estate has a few thousand cash and the £400 000 bungalow.
The second widow's estate has a few hundred and the mortgage company has the bungalow.
Why should the government grab thousands off the first because they didn't piss it against the wall each weekend?
Only one conclusion- it's the politics of envy, not fairness.
 
harpo_72 said:
Then you have made your choices and the system is equitable to all .. if you don’t want to react to it that’s your choice but don’t complain about it.
Also I would point out that most of those who pee it up the wall have a lower life expectancy and generally don’t stress the care system after retirement.. before retirement yeah they stress the system to breaking point having witnessed some silliness in A and E this week with my 7 yr old son.
But you can look at it like this and this will really upset you... in life your contributions have not been enough and that needs balancing in death .. that’s pretty horrible, perhaps it’s worth chasing the Billionaires for taxes and Amazon, Facebook, google, boots, Vodafone etc ...
Click to expand...

Having been through the care & property treadmill with the MiL, the system is not equitable.
 
Swinglowandslow said:
No, not the point. Why the hell should you have to go to lengths you suggest
to ensure that Corbyn government doesn't get your assets. They are not easy, cheap steps to take.
The whole principle of such a tax is wrong. Take two working families living in detached bungalows in, say, The midlands.
Both being bought on mortgages.
Children now gone, both have just husband and wife.
One has saved throughout: the other has had a good time and in order to keep up the holidays and nights out etc, the other mortgages the home further, instead of owning it outright.
They die (husband then wife, usual order) within a couple of years of each other , under Corbyn Labour Government
The first widow 's estate has a few thousand cash and the £400 000 bungalow.
The second widow's estate has a few hundred and the mortgage company has the bungalow.
Why should the government grab thousands off the first because they didn't piss it against the wall each weekend?
Only one conclusion- it's the politics of envy, not fairness.
Click to expand...
The couple who have peed up the wall have paid tax during their life time.. tax on booze, VAT etc... it’s just drip or in one whole go.
 
harpo_72 said:
The couple who have peed up the wall have paid tax during their life time.. tax on booze, VAT etc... it’s just drip or in one whole go.
Click to expand...
You’re wasting your time, people invent stories to meet their agenda.
The whole system is crap from all parties, but they focus on the poor rather than arguing the top should be focused on to ensure a Government has the funds to provide a decent standard of care for all.
 
harpo_72 said:
Then you have made your choices and the system is equitable to all .. if you don’t want to react to it that’s your choice but don’t complain about it.
Also I would point out that most of those who pee it up the wall have a lower life expectancy and generally don’t stress the care system after retirement.. before retirement yeah they stress the system to breaking point having witnessed some silliness in A and E this week with my 7 yr old son.
But you can look at it like this and this will really upset you... in life your contributions have not been enough and that needs balancing in death .. that’s pretty horrible, perhaps it’s worth chasing the Billionaires for taxes and Amazon, Facebook, google, boots, Vodafone etc ...
Click to expand...

Oh, so therefore they should get spent on them the money grabbed off you by Corbyn, because you have an unfair advantage in living longer because you didn't pee it up?
That's fair..."...."...............Like hell!
 
pauldj42 said:
Isn’t this only for say a house, ie, I sign my house to my son, if I live over 7 years and then peg it, the house is his, if under the 7 he’d be liable to tax on a sliding scale?
Click to expand...

Yes that is correct, my father, after advice from his financial advisor split his house between me and my brother as he was worried he would be forced to sell to look after my mum. Sadly that scenario never occurred. 15 years later he is still alive but we now own his house. I think it worked ok in our case but not sure what would have happened if he had wanted to downsize.
 
Bloomin hilarious for rUK watching England realise what the BBC is really like.
The latest one is cutting out the audience laughter on the news clip used when Johnson was asked about 'trust' on the leaders debate.
 
harpo_72 said:
The couple who have peed up the wall have paid tax during their life time.. tax on booze, VAT etc... it’s just drip or in one whole go.
Click to expand...

SocketRocket said:
That's not a good argument, is it?
Click to expand...

Swinglowandslow said:
That's remarkably controlled for you, good sir😀

In fact, it is the daftest one I've seen on here in a long time. Some people's idea of what is fair is unbelievable.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, the 'Holier than Thou' crowd grows larger. :eek::eek:
 
pauldj42 said:
You’re wasting your time, people invent stories to meet their agenda.
The whole system is crap from all parties, but they focus on the poor rather than arguing the top should be focused on to ensure a Government has the funds to provide a decent standard of care for all.
Click to expand...
Your right, because the argument undermines their point.
I suppose also the fact that they have been voting on short term tax benefits is coming home to roost.
 
SocketRocket said:
That's not a good argument, is it?
Click to expand...
Only to those who don’t want to accept it .. we all know the system is not getting the right amount of support. You can choose to propagate the issue or you can identify those who are not pulling their weight.
Do you not think it’s strange that all the newspapers are owned by billionaires who don’t pay their taxes .. they stay offshore and still make money out of the U.K. , is that right?
 
harpo_72 said:
Your right, because the argument undermines their point.
I suppose also the fact that they have been voting on short term tax benefits is coming home to roost.
Click to expand...
yeah, not to mention the attitude of Fk U i'm all right jack that is now prevelent in the UK
 
Last edited:
pauldj42 said:
Whilst still giving no opinion on some of the rich who pay less, or no IHT at all, than the poor couple in the bungalow.
Click to expand...
Problem with IHT threshold being lowered is it still won't harm the rich as much as it will the middle and lower income families. They may pay a bit more but they'll still be rich and well off, the middle and lower incomes will still be harder hit because the little they did save up for their families rainy day will be smaller and won't be anywhere near what they thought they were leaving.

Unfortunately with IHT there isn't a good outcome because nobody wants to pay tax on something whilst their grieving and knowing their loved ones worked hard to give them something they then have to pay out for the privledge of having something left to them in the event of death.

Do I think the rich should pay more than the middle/lower incomes (poor so to speak) ? YES but in reality with a lower IHT threshold the poor pay more to and that isnt the balance that is being proposed it's actually taking more at both ends of the scale. Bit like Robin Hood robbing from the rich to take from the poor anyway 🤷‍♂️
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top