Conservative plan to not charge inheritance tax on homes worth under1m

[loraward]

How so?

 

The tax not paid by people inheriting >£650 000 will have to be paid by others, or cut from budgets that have already been cut.

 

I'm not sure that I share your definition of fair.

 

---------- Post added 12-04-2015 at 21:53 ----------

 

 

I agree. I think it is a strange move. A gift to Labour really.

 

That argument can be applied to people not paying tax when inheriting a £1000.

 

Why should someone inheriting a 3 bed house in the south east pay tax, whilst someone in Sheffield inheriting an house of equal size has no tax to pay. A fair system would to to tax everyone on inheritance or no one.

[Guest sibon]

It's aspirational.

 

Blair was very good as aspirational politics. He'd get people voting for policies that would suit the person that they want to be, as opposed to the people that they are. It's how he won all his elections.

 

The Tories will hope that policies like this will do the same for them.

 

I don't see inheriting an expensive house as aspirational. I just see a tax cut for those who already have plenty.

 

If Labour can't spin this one, they might as well give up.

[JFKvsNixon]

I don't see inheriting an expensive house as aspirational. I just see a tax cut for those who already have plenty.

 

If Labour can't spin this one, they might as well give up.

 

It's the ownership of the expensive house and then passing it down to your children that's the aspirational part. It'll appeal to the people doing the inheriting.

[loraward]

I don't see inheriting an expensive house as aspirational. I just see a tax cut for those who already have plenty.

 

If Labour can't spin this one, they might as well give up.

 

Should your house go to your kids or should it go to the state?

[Guest sibon]

Should your house go to your kids or should it go to the state?

 

As things are currently, it will go to both.

 

I'm happy with that. My kids will get plenty.

[loraward]

As things are currently, it will go to both.

 

I'm happy with that. My kids will get plenty.

 

Why is it fair for your kids to get plenty when some kids will get nothing?

[Guest sibon]

Why is it fair for your kids to get plenty when some kids will get nothing?

 

Are you bored Smithy?

[loraward]

Are you bored Smithy?

 

I take it you can't answer the question without showing your hypocrisy.

[Guest sibon]

I take it you can't answer the question without showing your hypocrisy.

 

It is difficult to follow your wandering "logic", that's true.You seem to be arguing just for the sake of it.

 

To humour you, of course it is fair. What is the problem with leaving some of my estate to my family, some to charity and some to the country?

 

That seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me.

[loraward]

It is difficult to follow your wandering "logic", that's true.You seem to be arguing just for the sake of it.

 

To humour you, of course it is fair. What is the problem with leaving some of my estate to my family, some to charity and some to the country?

 

That seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me.

 

There is no problem at all, its yours and you should decide how it is shared out.

What is the problem with someone leaving their whole estate to their family and choosing not to give some to charity or the state, they might have more than you to give but their kids might also need it more than your kids.

 

Your argument appears to be based on its fair for your kids to get more than most, but it isn't fair when someone in the south east gets to leave their kids even more.

Edited April 12, 2015 by loraward