Viewing 40 posts - 121 through 160 (of 287 total)
  • Have we done the potential hike in N.I. payments?
  • Premier Icon kerley
    Free Member

    Inheritance tax and the right to pass on your home etc to you kids

    Funny that people still see it as their kids. With people now living till 80 their ‘kids’ are typically going to be 55 when they pass their house on to them. I would think a lot of people are fairly well set by 55 although still nice to have the money.

    Premier Icon 5lab
    Free Member

    I would think a lot of people are fairly well set by 55 although still nice to have the money.

    given the reports on pension fund sizes, they’re probably well set for now but have no chance to stop working. Maybe this round of inheritance will just plug that hole.

    Premier Icon thegeneralist
    Full Member

    I would think a lot of people are fairly well set by 55 although still nice to have the money.

    From my perspective I’ll be using it ( if it ever comes to pass) to get my kids a bit of house.

    ( which I appreciate is contentious in itself)

    Premier Icon finbar
    Free Member

    given the reports on pension fund sizes, they’re probably well set for now but have no chance to stop working. Maybe this round of inheritance will just plug that hole.

    I suspect those averages (around £60-£80k for over 55s based on a quick Google) are crude means, hiding the reality that:
    (i) there are plenty of over 55s who have been high earners for decades, own a nice property or two and have very healthy pension pots; and
    (ii) at the other end of the spectrum there are those over 55s who have no real pension pot and – given inter-generational similarities in wealth in families – probably stand not to inherit anything much anyway.

    A more robust IHT system would progressively impact the former, who can afford it, not the latter.

    Premier Icon 5lab
    Free Member

    A more robust IHT system would progressively impact the former, who can afford it, not the latter.

    not denying that, but the higher you raise IHT the more people will do to avoid it – which outside of primary residence wealth is pretty easy to do

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    Funny that people still see it as their kids. With people now living till 80 their ‘kids’ are typically going to be 55 when they pass their house on to them. I would think a lot of people are fairly well set by 55 although still nice to have the money.

    Yep, I’m 50 and my parents are still going strong, so probably won’t inherit till I’m in my 60s and retired!

    As for the ‘leave it to the kids’ belief, like a lot of beliefs it is both incorrect (or irrational) and yet very strongly held at the same time.

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    not denying that, but the higher you raise IHT the more people will do to avoid it – which outside of primary residence wealth is pretty easy to do

    Other than the 7 year rule (which should be scrapped), how is it easy to avoid inheritance tax?

    The extremely rich seem to be able to use Trust funds, but I suspect they’re not applicable / too expensive to administer for the masses.

    Premier Icon allanoleary
    Full Member

    I don’t get why they didn’t just abolish the drop off in NI payments for higher earners. Leave it at 12% but for all money earned instead of dropping to 2% over whatever the threshold is. Do that along with all dividends, bonuses, share options etc being taxed the same as income and there’s a shed load of extra cash.

    Premier Icon unulales
    Free Member

    I don’t see it as irrational to expect to pass some of the money to your children or grandchildren that you have put into paying for a nice home, and the costs of updating and maintaining it over 50+ years.

    If owning your own home was merely a social care pot for later life, then I imagine a lot of people may consider blowing this soon after retirement on enjoying what good years they may have left – and do as those who were unable to get on the housing ladder will be doing; letting the government pick up the full bill.

    Premier Icon chewkw
    Free Member

    I doubt Labour / lib Dem could do any better.

    Premier Icon thegeneralist
    Full Member

    I doubt Labour / lib Dem could do any better.

    Kind of moot really given that they seem to be doing their best to ensure they never get elected so we can find out

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    If owning your own home was merely a social care pot for later life, then I imagine a lot of people may consider blowing this soon after retirement on enjoying what good years they may have left – and do as those who were unable to get on the housing ladder will be doing; letting the government pick up the full bill.

    The problem with that strategy (and pension planning in general) is you never know how many good years you have left until its too late to do anything about it! Also, blowing the equity in your main house is quite hard to do….

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    Kind of moot really given that they seem to be doing their best to ensure they never get elected so we can find out

    Yes Starmer seems to be aiming to loose the next election by around 20 seats (a modest target) whereas Momentum, buoyed by JC’s success, want to go for broke and are trying to get Labour to aim for triple digits and loose by over 100 seats! That way they can say they won ‘the argument’ by a really big margin 😉

    Premier Icon dc1988
    Free Member

    Social Care reform has been talked about for too long without anything actually happening whilst the care sector slowly gets worse and worse. It’s about time something was done as too many previous PM’s have just ignored the issue, though I’m not convinced this is the right way to go about it.

    One of the interesting things due to be introduced is self funders being allowed to access the same social care rates as local authorities, this could have a serious impact on the care market.

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    One of the interesting things due to be introduced is self funders being allowed to access the same social care rates as local authorities, this could have a serious impact on the care market.

    It will collapse it as unless LAs can stomach a 50% price rise over night, as there’s no way care homes can survive making a 50% loss on every client!

    Premier Icon 5lab
    Free Member

    I don’t get why they didn’t just abolish the drop off in NI payments for higher earners. Leave it at 12% but for all money earned instead of dropping to 2% over whatever the threshold is. Do that along with all dividends, bonuses, share options etc being taxed the same as income and there’s a shed load of extra cash.

    that would lead to everyone in the upper tax bands paying between 52 and 72% tax on each pound earned. Regardless of your views on the laffer curve, I think there’s something deep-seated that people would feel about the government taking more than 50% of their money, and would probably lead to losing votes and possibly tax income as well.

    It definitely would be sensible to just bundle all tax into a single tax, which doesn’t have wierd spikes up-and-down as it goes, but I guess there’s political reasons and optics as to why national insurance and council tax are separate.

    Premier Icon matt_outandabout
    Full Member

    I would think a lot of people are fairly well set by 55 although still nice to have the money.

    Judging by the figures of how many people have 30 year mortgages, remortgaged regularly, and low pension pot’s, I think a lot of people are planning to use the inheritance to fund later life…

    Premier Icon squirrelking
    Free Member

    For the Scottish policy aware people –

    how does this affect Scotland beyond the Barnett link increase in funding?

    Could Scottish government choose to spend the increase in a different way?

    I thought we have devolved income tax, but I don’t think we have devolved NI?

    Swinney was on GMS this morning talking about it, thinking is that it would be spent in the same way although that’s dependent on negative consequentials. Waiting for more details before making any commitment.

    Premier Icon gonefishin
    Free Member

    … bonuses, share options etc being taxed the same as income and there’s a shed load of extra cash.

    Hate to break it to you but they already are, or at least mine are. Both are considered to be income and are taxed (and NI) accordingly.

    Premier Icon codybrennan
    Free Member

    As this move is going to be primarily aimed at funding the NHS ‘backlog’, with comparatively little going to SC, am I cynical to think that we’ll see a series of ‘fast-track’ decisions soon that bring in 3rd party private HC providers- and that all of this fluff is just designed to signal to them that their investments are going to be highly lucrative?

    Thinking like a current Tory minister here for a bit, and that this is just heavy privatisation by the back door.

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    that would lead to everyone in the upper tax bands paying between 52 and 72% tax on each pound earned. Regardless of your views on the laffer curve, I think there’s something deep-seated that people would feel about the government taking more than 50% of their money, and would probably lead to losing votes and possibly tax income as well.

    To be fair, there’s so few people in the highest income tax bracket, that loosing their votes is not going to make any electoral difference.

    There is a very disingenuous article in the FT this morning, claiming that gradautes in the basic tax rate bracket face a 50% marginal tax rate (if you include student loan repayment), although they only achieve that number by adding in employer’s NI contribution which is very poor journalism for the FT!

    From next April, graduates such as teachers or marketing executives earning £30,000 will only get half of any pay increases granted by their employers despite paying an income tax rate of 20 per cent.

    If their salary goes up £1,000, they will pay £200 in additional income tax, £132.50 more employee national insurance, and £90 in extra student loan repayments. Their employer will pay another £150.50 in employer national insurance. The total tax payments on £1,150.50 in additional employment costs will therefore be £573, a tax rate of 49.8 per cent of the additional pay bill.

    The correct number should be £200 + £132.50 + £90 = £422.5 / £1000 = 42.25%

    https://www.ft.com/content/bbaf099a-0b5b-48ad-9ca5-fee26844c1df

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    Hate to break it to you but they already are, or at least mine are. Both are considered to be income and are taxed (and NI) accordingly.

    There are various schemes for start ups which offer tax breaks on share options / shares – although they seem to change almost every year.

    https://www.taxinnovations.com/business/rewarding-employees/share-schemes/

    The biggest tax dodge is carried interest on Private Equity / Fund managers.

    https://www.rossmartin.co.uk/partnerships/1827-tax-loophole-tax-on-carried-interests

    Premier Icon Del
    Full Member

    Funny how the government can print money for the past 10 years but it’s covid that needs paying for. National debt was about 80% of GDP before covid and is about 100% after. The rates for the debt are historically low. That 80% was as a result of the 2008 crash. Source: R4’s ‘more or less’ last week.

    This hits the poor but they’ll still vote in ‘good old Boris’ next time. Tw4ts.

    Premier Icon intheborders
    Free Member

    I don’t get why they didn’t just abolish the drop off in NI payments for higher earners. Leave it at 12% but for all money earned instead of dropping to 2% over whatever the threshold is. Do that along with all dividends, bonuses, share options etc being taxed the same as income and there’s a shed load of extra cash.

    So you want anyone earning over £55kish on PAYE etc to pay another 10% in tax?

    You’ve really not thought this through have you…

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    but it’s covid that needs paying for.

    This tax hike doesn’t actually pay for Covid, none of the new money is going to paying off the massive increase in national debt as a result of furlough etc.

    Premier Icon intheborders
    Free Member

    To be fair, there’s so few people in the highest income tax bracket, that loosing their votes is not going to make any electoral difference.

    So few?

    About 4 million of us…

    Premier Icon finbar
    Free Member

    ignore – forgot about the 45% rate, lol

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    About 4 million of us…

    in the 45% bracket at over £150k?

    You sure?

    Less than 1% of tax payers according to HMRC….

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax

    Premier Icon gonefishin
    Free Member

    To be fair, there’s so few people in the highest income tax bracket, that loosing their votes is not going to make any electoral difference.

    The last time we had marginal tax rates that high (pension allowance taper so only a couple of years ago) it causes NHS waiting times to increase as the surgeons made the decision to not work overtime due to massive tax bills they received. I imagine this would have similar if not worse unintended consequences.

    Premier Icon johnners
    Free Member

    So you want anyone earning over £55kish on PAYE etc to pay another 10% in tax?

    You’ve really not thought this through have you…

    You may be unhappy about the idea but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been thought through.

    Perhaps a better way to frame the idea would be as a removal of the 10% reduction lower earners don’t benefit from.

    Premier Icon thegeneralist
    Full Member

    This hits the poor but they’ll still vote in ‘good old Boris’ next time. Tw4ts.

    This. All day long.

    Premier Icon intheborders
    Free Member

    You said:

    in the 45% bracket at over £150k?
    You sure?
    Less than 1% of tax payers according to HMRC….

    He said:

    I don’t get why they didn’t just abolish the drop off in NI payments for higher earners.

    It drops off at about £55k salary.

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    well if we’re playing that game…

    I said:

    To be fair, there’s so few people in the highest income tax bracket, that loosing their votes is not going to make any electoral difference.

    To which he said:

    About 4 million of us…

    Premier Icon unulales
    Free Member

    Well its 33 years until I retire – I hope its sorted by then

    Premier Icon yourguitarhero
    Free Member

    I would put the chances of “a normal world” (i.e. one without major societal changes caused by climate change rendering all this tinkering ridiculous) being here in 20 years at abotu 1 in 3.

    I’m putting my pension money into chainsaws and 4x4s

    Premier Icon nickjb
    Free Member

    Well its 33 years until I retire – I hope its sorted by then

    LOL. As if people will be allowed to retire in 30 years. The retirement age will be going up 2 years every year 🙂

    Premier Icon unulales
    Free Member

    Yes things may be a lot different, and a lot worse by time I get close to 68.

    A society that turns on their older generation as we see happening for the last few years(even on the pages here) does not bode well for other vulnerable groups in society; how long before those with disabilities get identified and scapegoated for voting differently and causing all the bad things in the world?

    Premier Icon MSP
    Full Member

    A society that turns on their older generation as we see happening for the last few years

    We have had 40 years of selling “futures” down the drain, now those “futures” are the present generation they want some of the proceeds of those sales.

    Premier Icon kerley
    Free Member

    A society that turns on their older generation as we see happening for the last few years(even on the pages here) does not bode well for other vulnerable groups in society; how long before those with disabilities get identified and scapegoated for voting differently and causing all the bad things in the world?

    There is a big difference between a set of people who have done very well out of historical pension schemes, large house price rises and ‘earning’ more per month via their pension than people who are working than a set of disabled people. Not sure how you made the leap to disabled people?

    Premier Icon Flaperon
    Free Member

    although they only achieve that number by adding in employer’s NI contribution

    Well, that’s because plenty of employers will ask employees to cover both sides of the increase in NI.

Viewing 40 posts - 121 through 160 (of 287 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.