Inheritance Tax Threshold increase to £600,000

[AlanHo]

I was pleased to read of the increase in Inheritance tax threshold for married couples and widow(er)s to £600,000 - until I read further.

A couple of letters on the BBC website reminded me that it was pure spin - I quote them as follows :-

None of this Inheritance Tax stuff is new. With a simple Discretionary Wills Trust, married couples can already achieve a £600,000 level of relief. Plus Brown had already announced putting the current £300,000 threshold up to £350,000 next Spring, two times this equals £700,000. So, basically, they have changed nothing - they have simply spun this by re-announcing existing legislation. This is another deliberate attempt to con the public. It is both shameful and deceitful. Pure spin as usual.

I've completely given up believing that we live in a democracy and that we have a parliament that represents us. We are dictated to, lectured at, preached at, lied to, misled, and treated with contempt by the political class and its various 'elite' allies.

[rong]

Feel better now

[Gandalph]

Very true Alan. That's what I've been saying for a while now.

[catgate]

The truth is that the printer made a mistake years ago when The Representation of The Peoples Act was produced. it was supposed to read The Misrepresentation to The Peoples Act.

[r4may]

More of the old spin and mis-information from the government as usual.

[CurlyWhirly]

I had to laugh when Brown took the stick for copying the Tories inheritance plans (even though they aren't new policies and Brown is no longer Chancellor)

I'm referring to Prime Ministers Question Time.

[Watchful]

It may be spin and nothing has changed 'in real terms' but I wonder how many ordinary people know of the ways of avoiding this tax?

There are many couples now owning houses of above £250k, without any input from them, but they may still be low wage earners who can't afford accountants, solicitors etc. and they still have to pay the exorbitant Council Tax charges. I think that inheritance tax should be scrapped altogether then it would be fair to all.

Another thing that should be scrapped is Stamp Duty. Every time a house changes hands, another fee is paid. What happens to all this money?

Brown had a pretty rough ride at PMQs and he's gone down a little in my estimation now but it's early days yet at the dispatch box.

I just wish there was a viable alternative or, at least, a strong opposition.

[AlanHo]

I just wish there was a viable alternative or, at least, a strong opposition.

You are not starting to lose faith in andsome are you....?

[andsome]

The answer with property is NOT to have the house owned by one member of the couple, or even to be joint owners. Best to sign up the house as Joint Tenants in common. We have done this and changed our wills. Now, when one of us dies, the other one will not inherit the other half of the house, it will automatically be inherited by both our kids, BUT with the clause that they cannot do anything with the house until the other partner dies, and the remaining partner can live there rent free for the rest of their life. So, only half of the value of the house can be considered for inheritance tax at that stage, and will be below the threshold. When the second partner dies, the inheritance is a separate inheritance, and will again be below the threshold. I hope that I have explained this clearly.

PS, regarding Brown and Darling. They are both as bad as B'liar. PILLOCKS and kings of spin. :lol:

[Watchful]

I see you've been delving into it all andsome ?

At the moment we don't come into it anyway but who knows what the next ten years may bring in the way of property prices?

[Watchful]

I just wish there was a viable alternative or, at least, a strong opposition.

You are not starting to lose faith in andsome are you....?

All I can utter is that, 'Andsome is as handsome does'

[andsome]

I see you've been delving into it all andsome ?

At the moment we don't come into it anyway but who knows what the next ten years may bring in the way of property prices?

It was advice from our financial adviser, confirmed by our solicitor.

[trackrat]

That is quite correct Andsome, we have done the same.

[CurlyWhirly]

I just wish there was a viable alternative or, at least, a strong opposition.

Personally I think that the bashing Brown got on the last Prime Ministers Question Time session was an indication of a strong opposition as usually the Tories are dire but not last time and Brown had his first bloody nose as Prime Minister.

I thought that New Labour had a bloomin' cheek nicking the Tory ideas on inheritance tax and taxing off shore business people

Can't they come up with policies of their own as if not then what a weak government they are.

[andsome]

They have been rubbish for ten years. True, the last Tory government were sleazy, but this lot have beaten them hands down, as well as being kings of spin.

[Watchful]

I just wish there was a viable alternative or, at least, a strong opposition.

Personally I think that the bashing Brown got on the last Prime Ministers Question Time session was an indication of a strong opposition as usually the Tories are dire but not last time and Brown had his first bloody nose as Prime Minister.

I thought that New Labour had a bloomin' cheek nicking the Tory ideas on inheritance tax and taxing off shore business people

Can't they come up with policies of their own as if not then what a weak government they are.

Cameron did quite well last Wednesday but who else is there? Only William Hague as far as I can see.

[CurlyWhirly]

the last Tory government were sleazy, but this lot have beaten them hands down, as well as being kings of spin.

Agreed.

Brown is as bad as Blair with the spin.

Cameron did quite well last Wednesday but who else is there? Only William Hague as far as I can see.

William Hague wasn't much good when he was in power

[catgate]

William Hague wasn't much good when he was in power

Was he in power or just the leader of the opposition muffins?

Let's not forget that it is the government that is supposed to be in power not the leader of the party. The government are allegedly doing "the will of the people" not acting as servile zombies controlling the people at the behest of their leader.

[CurlyWhirly]

Was he in power or just the leader of the opposition muffins?

Come to think of it I think he was in opposition and didn't actually get into power

[catgate]

I think he probably realised, being a Yorkshireman, that a life of "seniority", and all that goes with it for an ex-party leader, is probably a better insurance for the furtherance of long term troughing, than being pilloried as a would be PM rejected by the populace.

[Jayno]

Well, what a surprise. I find myself on an internet members' board where a number of anti-Labour cheerleaders like to post opinions, writing as if they are speaking the common view and everybody else on here agrees. I think it's only right that I add a post to say I am a board member who does not agree with them, and to point out that it was the majority of those who voted in the last election who voted for Labour (me one of them), so they speak only for the minority.

I'm not a cheerleader for Labour, and I understand the spin argument, but I am afraid it was the Tories who, when they were last in power, debased the english language by mis-using words like "choice", "freedom" and "democracy" to laud policy actions that were cynically intended to foster individual greed and advantage, and anti-democratic control (viz 'new speak'/Orwell 1984), who used their newspaper-owner pals to twist attitudes against Labour, Trade Unions, and any organisation they regarded as conscientious, liberal or collectivist in our society, and who ratcheted up the whole game of presentational politics, and the demonisation of anything different (viz. the Saatchi brothers). It was the Tories who led the way on the perversion of British politics into spin. It is a no-brainer to see that it was only when Blair copied the Tories media/spin tactics that he got Labour into power.

I think it's also worth pointing out the irony that Andsome is posing the joint-tenantship to avoid paying inheritance tax, as somehow beating Labour tax policy. What he explains is actually a close derivation of French (socialist) inheritance law, originally introduced by Napoleon to prevent the accrual of property (and thus wealth) into just a few hands, which of course, as he understood all too well, ultimately in French history had led to the obscenity and economic-stultification of aristocratic indolence and blood-sucking off the disadvantaged ordinary people.

Inheritance tax is progressive. It helps neither people or economies to try to roll it too far back.

[Watchful]

Are you being cynical here catgate by any chance?

The 'muffins' would charge you with that old chestnut (topical) 'The politics of envy.' Not me though, I hasten to add.

[Watchful]

Jayno - I think the members' banter is light-hearted for the most part as partisan politics are not supposed to be up for discussion on here.

I too voted Labour in the last general election and have been sadly disappointed with all the spin, to mention just one aspect.

I am all for giving Gordon a chance to rectify things because, as I said earlier, there is no viable alternative.

[Irene]

The answer with property is NOT to have the house owned by one member of the couple, or even to be joint owners. Best to sign up the house as Joint Tenants in common. We have done this and changed our wills. Now, when one of us dies, the other one will not inherit the other half of the house, it will automatically be inherited by both our kids, BUT with the clause that they cannot do anything with the house until the other partner dies, and the remaining partner can live there rent free for the rest of their life. So, only half of the value of the house can be considered for inheritance tax at that stage, and will be below the threshold. When the second partner dies, the inheritance is a separate inheritance, and will again be below the threshold. I hope that I have explained this clearly

All good sense, andsome. ;)

However, what happens if the surviving partner decided to move into an appartment, leaving the former marital home?

Does the deceased persons' half then get distributed. In other words, does your will relate to that single property?

[andsome]

The only answer to this is to discuss your wills with your solicitor and draw thing up how YOU want them. I have only outlined the rough idea. Obviously you decide on the small print yourselves. Hope this helps. :D

Getting back to the original thread, it is obvious to me that virtually all politicians are in the business mainly to suit themselves. It just happens to be my personal opinion that this last lot have surpassed any previous lot in all of the undesirable stakes. They have been better spinners, and a damned sight better liars, and better at taking peoples hard earned cash by STEALTH taxes. They have also given away far more of our sovereignty than even Ted heath did, and he was bad enough.

I have to disagree on one last point, and that is that the majority of people who voted in the last general election DID NOT vote for Labour. They were the largest party but were far away from being in the majority.

The figures were Labour 37%, Conservatives 33%, Lib dem 22%, and others 8%.

Facts taken from here.

There have been occasions in the past when the largest percentage of votes obtained by a party has not resulted in that particular party gaining a majority.

PS. I have voted for all the major parties over the years, and my attitude to the current government DOES NOT mean that I am a die hard Conservative, it just simply means that I consider the present lot to be one of the worst on record.