No good reason still to vote Tory

If the home is the only asset, it leaves the grieving family 6 month's to get probate and sell the property before they have to pay HMRC. The timeline is far too short.

My mother-in-law died last December and her (empty) property sale has still not completed.
Probate took an age to come through. At one point my sister-in-law threatened to stage a sit-in at the solicitor's office until something was done!
Thankfully no IHT is involved in this case.

You have to get probate agreed within 2 yrs in general but complex estates can take much longer, especially if it is disputed.

Doodledog

So people have to sell their £150k homes for pay for care, but it’s ok to pass on a £2m house and another £1m tax free? Really?

Hold on!

Where have I said someone should sell their £150K home for care please?

David49

You have to get probate agreed within 2 yrs in general but complex estates can take much longer, especially if it is disputed.

Yes but IHT kicks in the six month after death, if you cannot pay then interest is charged on the estate, whether or not probate is completed.

Just because your parents/grandparents/aunt etc have left you a house and a few trinkets (in the S E in particular) doesn’t mean that you yourself have the means to pay IHT or the interest before probate and sale are completed.

Sorry, nested quotes don’t work on my phone. To grannygravy - I didn’t say you said that, but it is what would happen if, in an unlikely scenario, a Tory government took power. We are told it is too expensive to pay for social care if people have assets over £16k, but it’s ok for others to inherit millions tax free. It’s my comparison, not yours.

Would you have free social care for all, as a matter of interest?

First of all I am not wealthy but a realist. If you tax the superrich who employ people and spend a large proportion of their wealth in the uk, where will the jobs come from and where will the minimum 40% tax shortfall be made up apart from the public sector?
The thing to do is not buy your own home, because it all goes in care costs.just wait for a council house, its about 40 years here by the way, certainly not save for crippling care costs because the state will pay for it and top up with benefits. I would love to know. I don't have faith in any party now. Burham just has not got it. Kemi is a leader for sure but some of her ideas are baffling. The other parties too weak and wooly but well meaning.

.

No matter how much your property is worth you still have to probably sell it to pay for care.Look up how much it costs each week for a resident.
In the South East, not just London a modest three bed bungalow costs £500,000 or thereabouts hardly wealthy! Yet it will mean paying Inheritance Tax.
Either scrap IT altogether or push the figure to a million or over.

Doodledog

Sorry, nested quotes don’t work on my phone. To grannygravy - I didn’t say you said that, but it is what would happen if, in an unlikely scenario, a Tory government took power. We are told it is too expensive to pay for social care if people have assets over £16k, but it’s ok for others to inherit millions tax free. It’s my comparison, not yours.

Would you have free social care for all, as a matter of interest?

Those without the means to pay get feee social care at the moment.

I think that if you can pay you should pay.

I am also in favour of a cap to protect part of one’s savings/assets . This is where it gets difficult as someone with a house worth £250k should they have the same percentage cap as a person with a house worth £500k. Should the person with a house worth £500k have the same protection as those with a house over £million?

I imagine this is why successive governments have not made any inroads into the care system.

Oreo

No matter how much your property is worth you still have to probably sell it to pay for care.Look up how much it costs each week for a resident.
In the South East, not just London a modest three bed bungalow costs £500,000 or thereabouts hardly wealthy! Yet it will mean paying Inheritance Tax.
Either scrap IT altogether or push the figure to a million or over.

If we are to have IHT in my opinion it shouldn’t kick in till £2,000,000 and then be graduated not straight in at a rate of 40%.

If it is made less punitive for those at the lower catchment it will be a fairer system.

I just can't see how it is fair to allow Mrs A to inherit a £2m house and £1m in cash tax free from her mum, when Mrs B has to sell her £150k home to pay for social care and can leave nothing to her daughter.

I'm usually quite good at seeing both sides of things, but I honestly can't with this one.

Allsorts

First of all I am not wealthy but a realist. If you tax the superrich who employ people and spend a large proportion of their wealth in the uk, where will the jobs come from and where will the minimum 40% tax shortfall be made up apart from the public sector?
The thing to do is not buy your own home, because it all goes in care costs.just wait for a council house, its about 40 years here by the way, certainly not save for crippling care costs because the state will pay for it and top up with benefits. I would love to know. I don't have faith in any party now. Burham just has not got it. Kemi is a leader for sure but some of her ideas are baffling. The other parties too weak and wooly but well meaning.

.

I think a lot of people think as you do, and don't see the point in saving or buying things that can be taken away, when others quite literally get tax-free money for nothing.

If we want to encourage people to come off benefits and into work they have to see that it will be worth it for them, and currently I can see why many may think it isn't.

Doodledog

I just can't see how it is fair to allow Mrs A to inherit a £2m house and £1m in cash tax free from her mum, when Mrs B has to sell her £150k home to pay for social care and can leave nothing to her daughter.

I'm usually quite good at seeing both sides of things, but I honestly can't with this one.

Doodledog that is the crux of the matter, which no governments have been able to sort out.

That is why a cap is needed to protect the person with a £150k house from spending all of their assets in their care.

It could be that someone with a £2,000,000 home will opt for a more expensive care home or private 24 hour nursing, so who knows how much of their assets would remain.

None of us know if we will need outside care or a care home, it is somewhat a lottery.

Maybe we should just pay until our money runs out then the state pick up 🤷‍♀️

There is never going to be a level playing field where we all have the same value homes, same amount of savings and assets. Unless of course you opt to live in North Korea, and even there they have a proportion of billionaires…

GrannyGravy13

Doodledog

I just can't see how it is fair to allow Mrs A to inherit a £2m house and £1m in cash tax free from her mum, when Mrs B has to sell her £150k home to pay for social care and can leave nothing to her daughter.

I'm usually quite good at seeing both sides of things, but I honestly can't with this one.

Doodledog that is the crux of the matter, which no governments have been able to sort out.

That is why a cap is needed to protect the person with a £150k house from spending all of their assets in their care.

It could be that someone with a £2,000,000 home will opt for a more expensive care home or private 24 hour nursing, so who knows how much of their assets would remain.

None of us know if we will need outside care or a care home, it is somewhat a lottery.

Maybe we should just pay until our money runs out then the state pick up 🤷‍♀️

There is never going to be a level playing field where we all have the same value homes, same amount of savings and assets. Unless of course you opt to live in North Korea, and even there they have a proportion of billionaires…

Yes, life has never been fair and never will be.

I would support index linking rises in the income tax threshold every year. This would be a lot more beneficial than some 1% cut in income tax. It would mean people who are on the higher rate state pension would be kept out of tax and help the lower paid.

I know that life's not fair, but isn't it the role of governments to make it fairer, not worse?

It's not a binary choice between a desperately loaded system and North Korea - there can be a middle ground, surely?

Oreo

No, selfishness isn’t the definition of the Conservative Party.

So this is what I hear from the far-right.

Individual selfishness: “I want what benefits me.”
Group-based self-interest: “I want what benefits people like us.”
Transactional politics: “I'll support you if you deliver benefits for me/us.”
Far-right collectivism: “The state should protect and advance our nation/ethnic/cultural group, even at others' expense.”

That is not just a far-right issue. It is also a far-left issue. That could be why I tend towards centrist politics. Not that centrists are automatically less selfish. A centrist politician/voter can be highly self-interested.

To me the British view that has grown over history and was generally accepted is that a functioning democracy requires people to accept that they have obligations to people whose interests don't immediately benefit them. This seems to have disappeared under the influence of the American right. Politics as compromise rather than permanent existential conflict is constantly challenged by those who keep suggesting that compromise cannot be good enough - perfection seems to be their aim even if that perfection is only "perfect" for a small group at this precise moment.

Life lived by humans rarely produces political perfection, but it can be a system that benefits most of us most of the time.

Doodledog

I know that life's not fair, but isn't it the role of governments to make it fairer, not worse?

It's not a binary choice between a desperately loaded system and North Korea - there can be a middle ground, surely?

Governments first duty is to protect its citizens.

Those without assets do get free care as they should.

A sliding scale of costs and taxes, is fair in my opinion.

Oreo

No matter how much your property is worth you still have to probably sell it to pay for care.Look up how much it costs each week for a resident.
In the South East, not just London a modest three bed bungalow costs £500,000 or thereabouts hardly wealthy! Yet it will mean paying Inheritance Tax.
Either scrap IT altogether or push the figure to a million or over.

Push the figure up. Why not?

Whilst they’re at it for goodness sake raise the personal allowances and the tax threshold for higher levels.

IMO, raising both the tax free threshold, and the first upper tax threshold.

Cossy

Oreo

No matter how much your property is worth you still have to probably sell it to pay for care.Look up how much it costs each week for a resident.
In the South East, not just London a modest three bed bungalow costs £500,000 or thereabouts hardly wealthy! Yet it will mean paying Inheritance Tax.
Either scrap IT altogether or push the figure to a million or over.

Push the figure up. Why not?

Whilst they’re at it for goodness sake raise the personal allowances and the tax threshold for higher levels.

IMO, raising both the tax free threshold, and the first upper tax threshold.

Totally agree Cossy 👍

DaisyAnneReturns

Oreo

No, selfishness isn’t the definition of the Conservative Party.

So this is what I hear from the far-right.

Individual selfishness: “I want what benefits me.”
Group-based self-interest: “I want what benefits people like us.”
Transactional politics: “I'll support you if you deliver benefits for me/us.”
Far-right collectivism: “The state should protect and advance our nation/ethnic/cultural group, even at others' expense.”

That is not just a far-right issue. It is also a far-left issue. That could be why I tend towards centrist politics. Not that centrists are automatically less selfish. A centrist politician/voter can be highly self-interested.

To me the British view that has grown over history and was generally accepted is that a functioning democracy requires people to accept that they have obligations to people whose interests don't immediately benefit them. This seems to have disappeared under the influence of the American right. Politics as compromise rather than permanent existential conflict is constantly challenged by those who keep suggesting that compromise cannot be good enough - perfection seems to be their aim even if that perfection is only "perfect" for a small group at this precise moment.

Life lived by humans rarely produces political perfection, but it can be a system that benefits most of us most of the time.

Your argument fails because the Conservative Party is not a far right Party and Labour is not a far Left Party.

Cumbrianmale56

I would support index linking rises in the income tax threshold every year. This would be a lot more beneficial than some 1% cut in income tax. It would mean people who are on the higher rate state pension would be kept out of tax and help the lower paid.

I agree.

There simply has to be a way which benefits and levels the playing field for all.

I don’t want to see those doing well financially penalised, neither do I wish to see anyone unfairly penalised to the benefit of someone else.

Those who make an extremely good income, and if we are truly honest, this is down to a combination of good choices, good luck and hard work, should not be unfairly penalised for doing so, but neither should those who work equally hard, outside of money making making, commercial companies, for example with our public sector jobs, should also not be penalised.

Just within our small family group we have one child reaping very large financial benefits, then another doing almost as well, then one choosing to work in teaching, with a huge difference in income, one who chose a different public sector role, who is earning enough at 26 to purchase a property on their own and then the last one choosing to work within the music business, who’ll probably only ever make enough income to “get by”.

But these were their own choices, they are happy with their choices and all work very hard in their chosen career paths.

Uplifting the tax threshold and the first level of higher taxes would benefit them all.

They are all aware that they had choices and indeed, do still have choices, what they have in common is that they are all prepared to work hard and do their best in their own lives.

They’ve all had shedloads of encouragement and support from us and a work-ethic drummed into them.

GrannyGravy13

Doodledog

I know that life's not fair, but isn't it the role of governments to make it fairer, not worse?

It's not a binary choice between a desperately loaded system and North Korea - there can be a middle ground, surely?

Governments first duty is to protect its citizens.

Those without assets do get free care as they should.

A sliding scale of costs and taxes, is fair in my opinion.

I still think that governments have a responsibility to all of its citizens, and pushing the interests of 4% over the other 96% is not fulfilling their duty.

I agree that those without assets should get free care, but not that those with modest assets should have to pay. They will have worked and paid taxes, whereas those without may not have done, so should not be reduced to poverty as though they hadn't worked.

I agree that a sliding scale of taxes is fair, but that scale should not expect people with less to pay more.

Pilgrimandrew

Can't believe the number of deluded left wing voters on this forum, especially when the demographic must be such that most are pensioners. Any vote for Labour is a vote for the continued down grading and destruction of our wonderful nation. Most of us on here must be old enough to know, and have experienced, that socialism doesn't work, it never has and never will.

Labour is not a 1970s socialist government. They run on a mixed-economy model that works closely with private business. As for economic growth, trickle-down economics and endless austerity have been shown to choke business.

If workers don't have disposable income, local businesses lose their customers. Growth happens from the ground up, not the top down.

Dickens I completely agree.

I think totally abolishing IHT would be a huge vote winner for anyone relatively well off to vote Tory.

However, millions within our population are simply “getting by”, with a few more million living relatively comfortable lives but lacking huge assets.

Many of us remember austerity, some of us were directly financially affected, most of us remember the impact this had on all our services.

No one, in their right minds, would welcome a return to austerity unless they are very well off and also don’t care about those who are not.

I’m talking about those earning above £150,000+ (each not a household) with houses worth above £1.5m.

I also believe that small and medium sized businesses need huge financial encouragement to grow and to employ apprentices and to employ part timers.

Bigger more productive/profitable commercial organisations should pay their workers a “living wage”, stopping the “top ups” from Universal Credit.

Genuine not-for-profit companies should be given more incentives to employ young people to give them opportunities to learn whilst helping.

Labour have recognised, since the Blair days, that a 1960/1970 socialist govt doesn’t work in 2026, they are not “inept” in business matters, however much the right would like to believe this.

Most of us here would encourage those in business to do well, employ people, pay the correct taxes, just so long as it’s not at the expense of other people.