Who you going to vote for?

[WTFH]

and the rest - I've been saying this for years. If Labour win, then don't expect even half of an inheritance windfall. You'll end up with practically nothing.

If, no not if _when_, Labour introduce a "super tax" of 90% or more, as it was in the 1970s, and they treat inheritance as income, then anyone inheriting a sizeable share of their aged P's estate would easily fall into that tax bracket for the year and thus have essentially the whole lot pinched in tax.

But on the plus side, this, along with their liberal policy on immigration, is one of Labour's massive hobbling Achilles heels, because millions of people are looking forward to a nice inheritance nest egg. So Bojo & co should be harping on about it at every opportunity.

And the current lot - what are they offering? Their message (which seems to be very successful based on a few posters on here) is: don't vote Labour, so you must vote for us.
I am NOT advocating voting for Labour.
But the Tory policies over the last few years have failed - there's no control on spending, the country's debt is not decreasing, it's not even staying still. They've cut services. They've given tax breaks to big businesses, while going after little ones. They've sold off Britain to foreign "investors". They've failed to build any of the 200,000 affordable houses they promised - blaming planning - while crowing about building 300,000 houses - just not affordable to first time buyers, but able to get them through planning.

[vwdan]

Lib Dem - I'm definitely a swing voter, and I've voted for all three major parties. But I absolutely refuse to go near Tory or Labour, predominantly because of IR35 but also due to a raft of other tulip.

[rogerfederer]

Have a read of this, especially all you happy clappy Liberal and Labour voters, and think about what those tax changes would actually do to ordinary working people like you and your family.

What the general election could mean for your finances | Money | The Times

Inheritance and gifts taxed as income, so that would mean 50% tax on everything you pass on to you kids. Pension tax relief limited to 25% so pensions go nowhere. The list is endless, tax, tax, tax, borrow, borrow, borrow.

Bankrupted country in under 5 years.

Enjoy morons!

I think this sort of scaremongering is rather strange from someone who is presumably quite a high earner. Firstly, on your penultimate point, the monetary system is such that bankruptcy can't really happen to the UK, US, France, Germany (etc) due to QE and the control of so many financial levers. Secondly: it won't happen and we all know that deep down.

I find it surprising that you find 50% tax 'high'. Assuming for a minute that all tax evasion strategies are removed and disabled, 50% really isn't a high tax income target for those about £80k to £100k/annum PAYE income. In our neighbouring countries they hover around 50% to 65%

To anybody reading this post I strongly urge you to have a play with the following OECD graphing tool:

Tax - Tax revenue - OECD Data

An example of a graph produced through this tool is this one:

https://data.oecd.org/chart/5FaW

You can compare tax revenue for each world country with reliable and reportable statistics in various ways, including viewing averages on each graph whilst manipulating the output in various forms.

You'll see that the UK is in the bottom fifth for tax revenue for EU countries, of which many are not on the scale of our development and high tech economy. Compare to France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria. Remove and add world countries as you so please.

Result? I think it's obvious that we can't get a better health service and the usual public services without more tax revenue. One country that stands out as being in a bad state in this respect is Ireland.

Everybody has preferences for how they see the UK progressing, but to me I'd rather pay more tax and support better services. I pay much less here than in other fully developed EU countries and the services are worse.

Avoiding privatisation is important - if I pay someone to give me healthcare directly then they're encouraged to find more things wrong or be more granular in finding problems that don't really need treatment, as we can see from the USA, finding problems that are caused by natural ageing rather than truly needing urgent attention. If you doubt me, go to a NHS dentist who offers private work and then go get a quote from a private-only dentist; they'll find anything minor at all just to get the cash in.

DimPrawn, pay slightly more tax and stop scaremongering with nonsense.

[malvolio]

I think this sort of scaremongering is rather strange from someone who is presumably quite a high earner. Firstly, on your penultimate point, the monetary system is such that bankruptcy can't really happen to the UK, US, France, Germany (etc) due to QE and the control of so many financial levers. Secondly: it won't happen and we all know that deep down.

I find it surprising that you find 50% tax 'high'. Assuming for a minute that all tax evasion strategies are removed and disabled, 50% really isn't a high tax income target for those about £80k to £100k/annum PAYE income. In our neighbouring countries they hover around 50% to 65%

To anybody reading this post I strongly urge you to have a play with the following OECD graphing tool:

Tax - Tax revenue - OECD Data

An example of a graph produced through this tool is this one:

https://data.oecd.org/chart/5FaW

You can compare tax revenue for each world country with reliable and reportable statistics in various ways, including viewing averages on each graph whilst manipulating the output in various forms.

You'll see that the UK is in the bottom fifth for tax revenue for EU countries, of which many are not on the scale of our development and high tech economy. Compare to France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria. Remove and add world countries as you so please.

Result? I think it's obvious that we can't get a better health service and the usual public services without more tax revenue. One country that stands out as being in a bad state in this respect is Ireland.

Everybody has preferences for how they see the UK progressing, but to me I'd rather pay more tax and support better services. I pay much less here than in other fully developed EU countries and the services are worse.

Avoiding privatisation is important - if I pay someone to give me healthcare directly then they're encouraged to find more things wrong or be more granular in finding problems that don't really need treatment, as we can see from the USA, finding problems that are caused by natural ageing rather than truly needing urgent attention. If you doubt me, go to a NHS dentist who offers private work and then go get a quote from a private-only dentist; they'll find anything minor at all just to get the cash in.

DimPrawn, pay slightly more tax and stop scaremongering with nonsense.

Your quoted countries do not have national health services but rely primarily on personal insurances. Several of them also have far higher social services costs. It is very difficult to compare like for like when looking an a nation's economics.

Also, the marginal tax rate are already around 50% for most taxpayers on half-decent salary: the 50% income tax mark would mean that increasing to closer to 70%.

Taxing the wealth creators is the ultimate stupidity. They will simply go elsewhere meaning both inward investment and the day-to-day economy would be crippled.

We wouldn't need to build 200k extra houses if immigration - legal and illegal - had been curtailed to something more supportable. Right now we need a new Birmingham every year to keep up. Take away the income as above and we simply can't afford that level of growth in our infrastructure.

And we should ignore 4-day weeks for no loss of income, nationalisation of major services and achieving zero carbon in 20 years as pure fantasy aimed at the economically illiterate.

But apart from that, fill your boots.

[rogerfederer]

Your quoted countries do not have national health services but rely primarily on personal insurances. Several of them also have far higher social services costs. It is very difficult to compare like for like when looking an a nation's economics.

Also, the marginal tax rate are already around 50% for most taxpayers on half-decent salary: the 50% income tax mark would mean that increasing to closer to 70%.

Taxing the wealth creators is the ultimate stupidity. They will simply go elsewhere meaning both inward investment and the day-to-day economy would be crippled.

We wouldn't need to build 200k extra houses if immigration - legal and illegal - had been curtailed to something more supportable. Right now we need a new Birmingham every year to keep up. Take away the income as above and we simply can't afford that level of growth in our infrastructure.

And we should ignore 4-day weeks for no loss of income, nationalisation of major services and achieving zero carbon in 20 years as pure fantasy aimed at the economically illiterate.

But apart from that, fill your boots.

I am not pro-Labour but rather pro higher taxes than our current baseline. Major avoidance and evasion is rife among the super-rich; seems a harsh state of affairs given that the poor were shafted so badly after the 2008 crisis - it's another poke in the eye when austerity didn't affect the super-rich in the slightest yet is partially caused by them. I imagine a few years of a Labour party limited by the LibDems could be good news to improve services temporarily, as the baseline of austerity has trashed the poorer areas whilst maintaining some form of normality in the richer areas, thus providing the illusion to the rich that nothing has really changed and "things ain't all that bad".

I agree that it's impossible to compare all countries based on the diverse that each have their healthcare services funded, part public part private in many cases. Overall, per capita, the UK spend among the lowest amounts (incorporating both public and private spend in other countries) when compared to those countries seen as being similarly higher tech developed countries. To avoid someone severely unwell having to pay £15 to be seen I'd rather pay more taxes.

Also, I don't see contractors as 'wealth creators' nor entrepreneurs, regardless of how much people on these forums wish to pretend they are. If their sole attempts have been contracting themselves out via Limited Co they are neither of the above.

[Zigenare]

I am not pro-Labour but rather pro higher taxes than our current baseline. Major avoidance and evasion is rife among the super-rich; seems a harsh state of affairs given that the poor were shafted so badly after the 2008 crisis - it's another poke in the eye when austerity didn't affect the super-rich in the slightest yet is partially caused by them. I imagine a few years of a Labour party limited by the LibDems could be good news to improve services temporarily, as the baseline of austerity has trashed the poorer areas whilst maintaining some form of normality in the richer areas, thus providing the illusion to the rich that nothing has really changed and "things ain't all that bad".

I agree that it's impossible to compare all countries based on the diverse that each have their healthcare services funded, part public part private in many cases. Overall, per capita, the UK spend among the lowest amounts (incorporating both public and private spend in other countries) when compared to those countries seen as being similarly higher tech developed countries. To avoid someone severely unwell having to pay £15 to be seen I'd rather pay more taxes.

Also, I don't see contractors as 'wealth creators' nor entrepreneurs, regardless of how much people on these forums wish to pretend they are. If their sole attempts have been contracting themselves out via Limited Co they are neither of the above.

In Ireland that would be 50Euro just to see your GP.

[malvolio]

Also, I don't see contractors as 'wealth creators' nor entrepreneurs, regardless of how much people on these forums wish to pretend they are. If their sole attempts have been contracting themselves out via Limited Co they are neither of the above.

One small point. The self employed - all 5 million of them - have been proven by academic research to generate £140-145 billion every year for the UK economy. So they probably do count as wealth creators, if only indirectly, by saving BigCo serious costs.

[Whorty]

Have a read of this, especially all you happy clappy Liberal and Labour voters, and think about what those tax changes would actually do to ordinary working people like you and your family.

What the general election could mean for your finances | Money | The Times

Inheritance and gifts taxed as income, so that would mean 50% tax on everything you pass on to you kids. Pension tax relief limited to 25% so pensions go nowhere. The list is endless, tax, tax, tax, borrow, borrow, borrow.

Bankrupted country in under 5 years.

Enjoy morons!

I don't have kids, so i don't care.

Next.

[Zigenare]

I don't have kids, so i don't care.

Next.

Thank <deity of choice> for that!

[Whorty]

Thank <deity of choice> for that!

Not religious either so pretty sure no deity was involved. Either my pathetic sperm, or the wife and I being careful as her getting pregnant with her chronic condition would not end well, were the reasons.

Take your choice