National insurance tax hike

Same_as_before

Well-known member
Be fair Randy. They are all still well aware that since they extracated us from the EE there is a red bus that drops of off £350 million each week at the NHS.
And that the £ and house prices would collapse, unemployment at over 15%. But hey ho, who believed Gideon and Cameron?
 

Millbrook

Well-known member
Trusts could be closed tomorrow with the political will. Something Starmer should jump on.

I can't think of a single reason to have them.

Make it a rule that 50% of the value of the trust has to be paid to HMRC on the point of signing not on death.

Any assets and property over say £100k to be taxed at 40%
I would have no problems with increasing taxation for the wealthy but I will give you a reason why a trust could be useful.

Mrs A is widowed and has 2 kids. She remarries Mr B who has 2 kids.

Mrs A puts up 75% of the cost of the new house and Mr B 25%.

The own the house as tenants in common in the above proportions. They each have the right to live in the house after the others death(lifetime interest) but a trust protects each of their share of the property so it can go to their own kids. Mrs A's 75% to her kids and Mr B's kids get 25% thus reflecting the equity they each put in.
 

Same_as_before

Well-known member
I would have no problems with increasing taxation for the wealthy but I will give you a reason why a trust could be useful.

Mrs A is widowed and has 2 kids. She remarries Mr B who has 2 kids.

Mrs A puts up 75% of the cost of the new house and Mr B 25%.

The own the house as tenants in common in the above proportions. They each have the right to live in the house after the others death(lifetime interest) but a trust protects each of their share of the property so it can go to their own kids. Mrs A's 75% to her kids and Mr B's kids get 25% thus reflecting the equity they each put in.
Sorry but number of children should be irrelevant, that's a life choice.

If the house is over £100k it's taxed at whatever rate.
 

changingman

Well-known member
Regardless of how and what is actually funded, does anybody feel confident that all/some/any of this windfall will find its way to end user?

If I owned a social care business and was mates with the local conservative MP I'd be sat in front of the TV with a glass of bubbly right now.

Feels very much like fraud wrapped up as progress sold as a necessity to me.
 

FatCat

Well-known member
My council has charged a social care precept for years - I can’t see how they can justify maintaining that now but I am sure that they will try.
 

Redwurzel

Well-known member
Some replies

Trusts still pay some tax - agreed, but they are used as a tax avoidance tool, particularly for inheritance tax. The wealth stays in the Trust on death.

Yes they can be abolished just as some British people have non dom status and so pay less tax than the rest of us, but they have not been abolished and have existed for over 100 years 200 years in some cases - what does that say?

I didn't even know there was such a thing as non dom status for UK based citizens until the 2017 election. Its kept that low a profile, like Family trusts.

Ref Care Insurance - you don't see much of that advertised unlike cars, houses etc - Have a think through the process - we get old and develop long terms conditions and need daily support - for about 50% of us that will be true, families are less willing and less bale to provide direct support so we need to us a care agency or care home - thats a lot of very big claims. Someone will have to decide at the insurance comoany we need it and where. It could be a complete minefield. The best adise is make your pensions as high as possible then you or your family stay more in control.
 

Millbrook

Well-known member
Sorry but number of children should be irrelevant, that's a life choice.

If the house is over £100k it's taxed at whatever rate.
Sorry but I think you have missed the point or rather both of them. My example neither made the number of kids relevant nor said anything about taxation.

You said there was no reason to have trusts.

My example was to show that remarried partners can use a trust to ensure that the assets are split according to their contribution and are passed to their own children.

Imagine in the example I gave Mrs A dies without a will so her assets go to her husband Mr B. He then makes a will leaving everything to his kids and Mrs A's get nothing even though she contributed more to purchase the property.
 

Corcaigh_the_Cat

Well-known member
Sorry but I think you have missed the point or rather both of them. My example neither made the number of kids relevant nor said anything about taxation.

You said there was no reason to have trusts.

My example was to show that remarried partners can use a trust to ensure that the assets are split according to their contribution and are passed to their own children.

Imagine in the example I gave Mrs A dies without a will so her assets go to her husband Mr B. He then makes a will leaving everything to his kids and Mrs A's get nothing even though she contributed more to purchase the property.
She could have given the kids the 50% extra she was putting into her joint venture rather than spend it on herself in that case?
 

Millbrook

Well-known member
She could have given the kids the 50% extra she was putting into her joint venture rather than spend it on herself in that case?
What are you talking about. She used her assets to put 75% of the cost of the house into the purchase. It would have been needed to buy the house, without doing that she would not have had a roof over her head.

I am not defending trusts that the very wealthy use just showing a reason why the non wealthy may benefit from a trust to ensure their assets go where they wish on death.
 

tripleheader

Well-known member
I love how working-age people are carrying the can for this. Classic Tories.
Where else would you suggest they get the revenue? Unless we start to tax visitors and ex-pats I'm not sure where your going to get the money from other than the working population and non-working by reducing benefits.
 

Corcaigh_the_Cat

Well-known member
What are you talking about. She used her assets to put 75% of the cost of the house into the purchase. It would have been needed to buy the house, without doing that she would not have had a roof over her head.

I am not defending trusts that the very wealthy use just showing a reason why the non wealthy may benefit from a trust to ensure their assets go where they wish on death.
Putting all of her assets in is a choice. That's what I'm saying.
 

Ziggy

Well-known member
Lots of interesting ideas about who pays what…fairness and the rest.
But the Leader of the House, “The Haunted Pencil” as just stood up and proclaimed that this will all be debated tomorrow.
So, that’s one day, meaningful insight and examination of the bill curtailed. So it will only become apparent when it’s law. Allocations and spending will take place in January. What’s the rush.
The real reason for debate being heavily truncated….is the Tory backbenchers are scaring the living shoite out of the government.
 

Same_as_before

Well-known member
Sorry but I think you have missed the point or rather both of them. My example neither made the number of kids relevant nor said anything about taxation.

You said there was no reason to have trusts.

My example was to show that remarried partners can use a trust to ensure that the assets are split according to their contribution and are passed to their own children.

Imagine in the example I gave Mrs A dies without a will so her assets go to her husband Mr B. He then makes a will leaving everything to his kids and Mrs A's get nothing even though she contributed more to purchase the property.
Sorry you are right. That type of trust us about 'fairness' nothing wrong with that.

I was referring to the trust Mr Lord Snooty will have prepared.
 

Colin Warnek

Well-known member
I’m late to the socialism thing, only really thinking it’s got it’s worth in my 40s but I’ve come to the belief that a lot of the old school labour voters had the same view LaPenna, they were only interested in socialism if they were getting something out of it, they didn’t care enough about those less fortunate to them… I’m not wanting to over generalise but they seem to have bought into the Tory line that they will be worse off if we all try to help each other…
In summary, they now all vote Tory.
 

tripleheader

Well-known member
No - and the less well off ones wont be paying tax

But there are better off ones who do pay tax but no NI - so the generation that will need social care the most will not be paying anything for it. Whereas younger people will be paying for older people and themselves.

And this is in addition to the huge benefits that older people had that no longer apply to younger people, like cheaper house prices, jobs for life, final salary pensions, free university education etc etc.
Social care is means tested, and you have to pay for it if you have the means to do so.
People today have higher expectations than I or my parents had when it comes to everyday living. You know, lived with parents, first house had no furniture,tea chest for a table etc.
Jobs for life, really? Final Salary Pensions-thank Gordon Brown for screwing that up, removing tax relief on pension dividends. Uni was never free
 
Top
X