AND HERE WE GO - THE 2019 GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

[Blue in Munich]

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.

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.

So no invention there about how or why people have been voting then?

 

[Beezerk]

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.

I don't understand your argument, you've been posting about standing up for people with a lower income but this lower IHT threshold would directly impact them.
Weird.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

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 🤷‍♂️

Totally agree mate, I’m one who’ll be hit by the policy, my anger is not only aimed at Labour though.
The tories have allowed the loopholes to stay open for the rich.
Focussing on some waste of space pissing every penny up against the wall than some greedy billionaire failing to pay a penny is just daft imo.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

So no invention there about how or why people have been voting then?

I was talking about the bungalow fairy story mate.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I don't understand your argument, you've been posting about standing up for people with a lower income but this lower IHT threshold would directly impact them.
Weird.

See post below yours mate.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

For those worried about our National Security the tories have dropped their promise to not cutting the Armed Forces from the current manifesto.
It was in the 2017 Manifesto.

 

[Wolf]

Totally agree mate, I’m one who’ll be hit by the policy, my anger is not only aimed at Labour though.
The tories have allowed the loopholes to stay open for the rich.
Focussing on some waste of space pissing every penny up against the wall than some greedy billionaire failing to pay a penny is just daft imo.

This is where we are most certainly in agreement, lowering the threshold does nothing to the higher ends but hurts the likes of you and me. Every government has failed to do what matters and that's close the loopholes that affect the biggest loss in this area, but instead are now focusing on recouping it at the lower end, the reason being mostly because the politicians and their funders are the ones that are able to exploit the loopholes so are less affected.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

This is where we are most certainly in agreement, lowering the threshold does nothing to the higher ends but hurts the likes of you and me. Every government has failed to do what matters and that's close the loopholes that affect the biggest loss in this area, but instead are now focusing on recouping it at the lower end, the reason being mostly because the politicians and their funders are the ones that are able to exploit the loopholes so are less affected.

I’m not in agreement with this Labour policy, but they are also stating they will target the loopholes. Still sh!te though.

 

[Wolf]

For those worried about our National Security the tories have dropped their promise to not cutting the Armed Forces from the current manifesto.
It was in the 2017 Manifesto.

Yeah just seen this myself a compete U turn on the promise of 2 years ago, failure to admit that a huge issue has been the use of Capita as a private firm for recruitment of forces personnel instead of keeping it in house. So rather than admit failure which has been costly, they're cutting the overall number to save costs of public money there..

Another reason not to vote for Boris and his brigade. Better in this case had they acknowledged the failure of the deal with Capita and cut that loss to save the money and put recruitment directly back in the hands of Army, RAF & Navy, which would in essence enable more jobs as they'd need the recruiting teams, medics, PTs & training staff. This would have led to better retention as current personnel could take a side step towards end of careers to working in training regiments & recruitment areas whilst having the knowledge to recruit accurately and effectively.

Edit: whilst saving millions on their terrible deal with Capita which could be redirected to public funds.

 

[harpo_72]

Yeah just seen this myself a compete U turn on the promise of 2 years ago, failure to admit that a huge issue has been the use of Capita as a private firm for recruitment of forces personnel instead of keeping it in house. So rather than admit failure which has been costly, they're cutting the overall number to save costs of public money there..

Another reason not to vote for Boris and his brigade. Better in this case had they acknowledged the failure of the deal with Capita and cut that loss to save the money and put recruitment directly back in the hands of Army, RAF & Navy, which would in essence enable more jobs as they'd need the recruiting teams, medics, PTs & training staff. This would have led to better retention as current personnel could take a side step towards end of careers to working in training regiments & recruitment areas whilst having the knowledge to recruit accurately and effectively.

It’s across a lot of industries and costs can be saved and services can be improved.
The biggest asset to any organisation is the people within it.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

I was talking about the bungalow fairy story mate.

Do you live with your eyes closed?
Are you telling us that there are no cases of surviving spouses' estates having to pay IHT? Or no cases of those who had similar incomes but spent it all?
That these scenarios, or similar are not to be found throughout this country?

I'm not criticising those who spend it , that's their business, and their entitlement, what I'm criticising is a tax that is imposed on those who choose to pass it on to their children instead of spending it.
And this opinion is no way affected by how the rich ( particularly Companies) avoid the taxes that they should lawfully pay. I imagine my view on that is similar to yours.

 

[Wolf]

It’s across a lot of industries and costs can be saved and services can be improved.
The biggest asset to any organisation is the people within it.

Totally agree but knowing how the change of recruitment has gone from. Knowledge within and what its costing for use of Capita there would be a bigger saving there, without harming the future potential security of the country.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Do you live with your eyes closed?
Are you telling us that there are no cases of surviving spouses' estates having to pay IHT? Or no cases of those who had similar incomes but spent it all?
That these scenarios, or similar are not to be found throughout this country?

I'm not criticising those who spend it , that's their business, and their entitlement, what I'm criticising is a tax that is imposed on those who choose to pass it on to their children instead of spending it.
And this opinion is no way affected by how the rich ( particularly Companies) avoid the taxes that they should lawfully pay. I imagine my view on that is similar to yours.

Of course there is, but as you’ve agreed the issue is the rich.
You’ve given one version of what can happen and the tories are offering nothing to address the situation.

You could raise the IHT to 500K and there would be even more people happy, it still wouldn’t make it right if the super rich are still paying nothing.

So rather than just focussing all my anger at Labour, I’d rather focus on both them and the tories and ask why we don’t have a fair system for all.

I’ve already been questioned about a supposed fixation with the Duke of Westminster, but by him using “legal” loopholes before he died his son inherited over 8 Billion and paid very little if anything in inheritance tax.
Under Government rules and avoiding loopholes that amounted to billions in lost revenue to the Government.
But instead of us getting angry and annoyed at that the present government allow it, we get angry at a policy that may or may not actually happen.

 

[Hobbit]

Angela Raynor made a great job of dodging Andrew Mar's question on how Labour's statement where only the top 5% of earners will pay more income tax when millions of people on the basic rate will if Labour removes the Married tax allowance. Should we all start shouting out 'Liars'

That's been picked up by a few interviewers since the manifesto was released. Might gain some negative traction like George Osbourne's pasty tax.

 

[Hobbit]

Of course there is, but as you’ve agreed the issue is the rich.
You’ve given one version of what can happen and the tories are offering nothing to address the situation.

You could raise the IHT to 500K and there would be even more people happy, it still wouldn’t make it right if the super rich are still paying nothing.

So rather than just focussing all my anger at Labour, I’d rather focus on both them and the tories and ask why we don’t have a fair system for all.

I’ve already been questioned about a supposed fixation with the Duke of Westminster, but by him using “legal” loopholes before he died his son inherited over 8 Billion and paid very little if anything in inheritance tax.
Under Government rules and avoiding loopholes that amounted to billions in lost revenue to the Government.
But instead of us getting angry and annoyed at that the present government allow it, we get angry at a policy that may or may not actually happen.

Lets drop the Duke out of the argument for a second. I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing, just looking to take an emotive angle out of it.

Why does anyone have to pay inheritance tax? Or, if there has to be an inheritance tax why not make, say, 5% of all cash/shares/bonds over £250k?

In most cases, rich or otherwise, the money will have been earned and taxed, and taxed at a higher rate if they're high earners. The money they invested will have had its interest taxed. Inheritance tax taxes the capital sum. Just why is that fair?

Its nothing short of robbery, and you'll never convince me its anything else.

Close the loopholes by all means, and make taxation fair for all. But a death tax on capital sums and assets, including the family home... its obscene.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Lets drop the Duke out of the argument for a second. I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing, just looking to take an emotive angle out of it.

Why does anyone have to pay inheritance tax? Or, if there has to be an inheritance tax why not make, say, 5% of all cash/shares/bonds over £250k?

In most cases, rich or otherwise, the money will have been earned and taxed, and taxed at a higher rate if they're high earners. The money they invested will have had its interest taxed. Inheritance tax taxes the capital sum. Just why is that fair?

Its nothing short of robbery, and you'll never convince me its anything else.

Close the loopholes by all means, and make taxation fair for all. But a death tax on capital sums and assets, including the family home... its obscene.

100% agree Bri, not one bit of me agrees with it.

Had my eyes opened last year when involved as an executor, the accountant was superb who did the financial side and walked the 3 (executers) through it.

Tax upon tax at every opportunity.

 

[Old Skier]

For those worried about our National Security the tories have dropped their promise to not cutting the Armed Forces from the current manifesto.
It was in the 2017 Manifesto.

Easy target bud, Torys have always used it as a way of raising money and never been reversed by Labour. Might as well reduce it all now as unless they are needed to help fill Wembley they aren't in much of a position apart from the subs to do much. Strange at a time when Russia and China are expanding like crazy.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Easy target bud, Torys have always used it as a way of raising money and never been reversed by Labour. Might as well reduce it all now as unless they are needed to help fill Wembley they aren't in much of a position apart from the subs to do much. Strange at a time when Russia and China are expanding like crazy.

boris has just been asked at his manifesto launch if they are at risk and he said No to any cuts.
Good job his word is his bond.

 

[Old Skier]

boris has just been asked at his manifesto launch if they are at risk and he said No to any cuts.
Good job his word is his bond.

Doubt anyone told him another complete Challenger 2 Regt to be funded

 

[Old Skier]

Seems labours fiscal rules lasted less than 3 days and that's without being in power. Anyone like to hazard a guess where the £58bn is coming from. Could it be you and me?