Cameron and Tory pals to make £7million from inheritance tax.

[IainBusby]

David Cameron and Tory pals to make £7million from inheritance tax changes if they get elected.


http://perspicacious.co.uk/all-the-n...er-rich/17990/

The country is deeply in debt and major cuts are going to be needed to get the economy back on track, but a conservative government can always afford to help out the super rich..... especially when there a lots of them in the cabinet.

[Scouse]

David Cameron and Tory pals to make £7million from inheritance tax changes if they get elected.

And you're surprised by that?

[Dedworth]

Labour Minister Shaun Woodward has done quite nicely from his supermarket heiress wife Camilla Sainsbury - I doubt if she built up her pile by working on the checkout

[IainBusby]

And you're surprised by that?

I'm not in the least surprised by that. It just goes to show where their priorities will lie once they are in power. Maybe they still believe in the Regeanite trickle down theory, make the rich richer and some of their riches will trickle down to the rest of us. It never worked the last time it was tried so I don't suppose it'll work when Cameron tries it.

[johncar54]

OK I will not benefit but inheritance tax is paid on assets which when purchased were paid for with earnings which had been taxed.

If that asset had been disposed of then it was likely to be subject to capital gains tax.

Maybe inheritance tax should only apply to any increase in the value of the asset, since it was acquired, at the time it is inherited. That is, the same as capital gains tax.

[KeithD]

When the housing bounces back, a lot of old folk will be back in your 'super rich' bracket then

[IainBusby]

When the housing bounces back, a lot of old folk will be back in your 'super rich' bracket then

I have always thought that inheritance tax needs adjusting so that people on average and middle incomes who have found themselves (because of the rises in propety values) likely to become subject to this tax which was originally, only intended to affect the real super rich.

The tories are going to scrap it completely which, although it will help some old folk and people on average incomes, the real winners will be the ones who can well afford to pay this tax, the super rich.

In the end Mr and Mrs average will have to pay more tax in other areas to make up for what Cameron and his cronies are going to give away to their rich friends and supporters.

[bornatbirth]

In the end Mr and Mrs average will have to pay more tax in other areas to make up for what Cameron and his cronies are going to give away to their rich friends and supporters.

that as always been the case

but you have to admit the labour party hasnt done itself any favours,i mean whats left to cock up

will some just vote labour to keep the tories out,i do hope so but at the risk of what.....no pension until im dead...no benefits..and the lists goes on..

[johncar54]

I have never really understood the idea that one section of the community should pay more for services than others, just because they are rich.

For example the idea that if one lives in a big house they should pay more in rates than a person who, for whatever reason, lives in a small house. In reality the person in the big house probably provides employment for housekeeper, cleaners, gardeners, driver etc. They probably pay for private medical care, their children attend private education, they maybe have a swimming pool and will buy books rather than borrow them from the public library. They will probably be less likely to use public transport and public services in general, so why should they be the ones paying most?

If they work, or have a private income, they will probably pay a disproportional amount in taxes compared with the low paid or with those who have chosen to do the least necessary to survive.

I see no reason why there should not be an upper limit on the amount of income tax a person pays. If there were, it might mean pay rises would be lower, than at present when they have to be high to compensate for the amount they will loose in tax.


For the record, I have never been in the rich category but good luck to those who are and to those rich people who are the ones who provide employment (and social security benefits) for the rest.

[el capitan]

Most of the rich don't pay tax anyway, there are too many loopholes for them to drive their truckloads of money through without hinderance.

[johncar54]

Most of the rich don't pay tax anyway, there are too many loopholes for them to drive their truckloads of money through without hinderance.

Well that's nice to know, ............. but ........ erm ......... if that's so where does the tax income come from, the poor and unemployed ...,. !!!!! ............... and is it them too who employ the workers ......... !!!!!!!!

[el capitan]

The majority of tax is paid by the majority (suprise suprise), that means the middle 70-80% of the population that are neither rich or in need of benifits for most of their lives.

and is it them too who employ the workers
It could also be said is it not them who profit of the workers?
It should be a mutually benificial agreement, at the moment I would say that the employer has the uperhand and takes an unfair slice of the pie (in most cases).

[johncar54]

The majority of tax is paid by the majority (suprise suprise), that means the middle 70-80% of the population that are neither rich or in need of benifits for most of their lives.

and is it them too who employ the workers
It could also be said is it not them who profit of the workers?
It should be a mutually benificial agreement, at the moment I would say that the employer has the uperhand and takes an unfair slice of the pie (in most cases).

I take your point but had the company I worked for gone broke, it was the boss who would have lost his company/investment. He would not have ask me for a hand out to help.

Thus in the good times I expected him to make money on his investment. That of course meant treating me in a way I was happy with (beneficial agreement). Had I not been happy with 'my piece of the pie' I would have got another job.

[Scouse]

If they work, or have a private income, they will probably pay a disproportional amount in taxes compared with the low paid or with those who have chosen to do the least necessary to survive.

They do pay a disproportional amount of tax, ie a smaller proportion of their income than poorer people as they do not spend all of it so pay less VAT.

By the way, most of you seem to resent people receiving benefits but don't seem to object to giving the richest woman in the country millions of pounds a year, and paying for teh upkeep of several homes and a personal train.

[aromulus]

By the way, most of you seem to resent people receiving benefits but don't seem to object to giving the richest woman in the country millions of pounds a year, and paying for teh upkeep of several homes and a personal train.

Pound for pound, "that" woman brings in more revenue into the country than she actually costs....

We had this discussion before...

[walesrob]

a personal train.

The Royal Train is owned by a company called EWS Railways and the Royal Family are using it less these days, instead opting to use ordinary trains to save money.

The Royal Family in my opinion are excellent value for money, and as Dom states quite rightly, they do an excellent job.

Sometimes I think this country will eventually drown in a sea of self-righteousness.

[KeithD]

Always handy having a German Queen ....although it never stopped the buggers bombing us ....ah well.... we won

[IainBusby]

always handy having a german queen ....although it never stopped the buggers bombing us :erm: ....ah well.... We won :hellooo: