Inheritance Tax

 

           The 2010 Conservative Manifesto said “We will raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1m to help millions of people who aspire to pass something on to their children, paid for by a simple flat rate levy on all non domiciled individuals”

            The Lib Dems palced a veto on doing this in government in the current Parliament, and it did not appear as a Coalition promise in the Coalition Agreement. They did raises taxes on non doms and spent the money elsewhere.

            Today we are likely to be told that the next Conservative manifesto will say that the Inheritance Tax threshold should  be frozen at £325,000 until 2019. It has been frozen this Parliament at the request of the Lib Dems. This will help pay for the care costs cap.

           Which policy do you prefer, the 2010 one or the 2015 one?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

322 Comments

  1. Boudicca
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    Another U-turn; another kick in the crotch for people who ‘did the right thing’ and saved, bought a house and tried to provide for themselves and their families.

    Another punishment for middle-class families who have a relatively small amount of wealth to cascade down the generations – the people who in the past could be trusted to vote Conservative.

    Another lie from Cameron and Osborne. A lot more votes for UKIP.

    I wonder how much we’ll be paying in Social Care for all those Romanians and Bulgarians who will have the right to come into the UK in 2014 and take full advantage of our public services? It will be wonderful for them to ship granny over to the UK to have her cared for by the British State – all paid for by UK taxpayers.

    You can have an open-door policy and mass immigration – or you can have a welfare state. It seems Cameron is choosing an open-door policy and mass immigration.

    • Graham
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:43 am | Permalink

      Exactly – where is the equality in this programme!! Yet more lies from politicians.

      I am wholeheartedly sick of my taxes over the last 40 years being used for purposes which contradict my own desires.

      The point about immigrants is well made and yet again these rules are thought up without any joined up thinking.

      Soon be at the stage where the state gives us ‘pocket money’ to spend. Major social unrest is bound to follow within the next 20 year

      • Jerry
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

        @Graham: “I am wholeheartedly sick of my taxes over the last 40 years being used for purposes which contradict my own desires.

        Indeed Graham, I bet many a CND member etc. feel exactly the same, just a pity that we can’t all just choose which and what taxes to pay…

        • Nick
          Posted February 11, 2013 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

          Hmmm, lets see.

          We promise to raise IHT to 1 million

          We promise to hold a referenda on Europe.

          Just how much are those promises worth?

          About zero.

          • Publius
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

            Nick –

            Referenda is the plural of referendum.

            One referendum.
            Two referenda (or referendums – if you don’t feel comfortable with Latin plurals)

            I realise that these days even journalists are illiterate, but it’s worth trying to get it right.

          • lifelogic
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

            Less than zero more a 100% assurance that Cameron and Osborne hold voters in complete contempt and will do the opposite of what they say.

            Anyway why rule it out to 2019? Perhaps to 2015 due to Cameron having given away the last election and having the Libdumbs at his throat but 2019? Complete contempt for both the electorate and their reputations for honesty.

        • David Price
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:44 am | Permalink

          Where is your proof that M.A.D hasn’t achieved it’s purpose?

          • Jerry
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 11:08 am | Permalink

            Mr Price, I see that you totally missed the point (again)…

          • David Price
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 9:01 am | Permalink

            @Jerry: Not at all.

          • Jerry
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 11:51 am | Permalink

            @David Price: Sorry but you are missing the point, I could have used any tax, any issue (for example I could have used private health care vs. NHS health and its funding method), the fact that I happened to used nuclear defence and CND is irrelevant to the point being made about some people wishing they could choose what their taxes fund.

            BTW, I’m not refusing to discuss M.A.D, just that this is not the blog to do so, if ever JR discuses defence that will be the time and place.

          • David Price
            Posted February 14, 2013 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

            “.. the fact that I happened to used nuclear defence and CND is irrelevant to the point being made..”

            Precisely

    • life
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

      Indeed an open-door policy, mass immigration and a welfare state are simply not compatible. Unless Cameron really does have a magic money tree as he seems to think.

      I think Cameron and Osborne underestimate the effect of broken promises on the electorate and they also underestimate the effect on peoples psychology of 40% IHT on death and 20% on lifetime transfers. If you have earned the money (and paid the income taxes due on it) then it should be yours to spend, just as you wish to, or to give to your children (or anyone else as and when you wish to).

      It is true that it mainly affect the richer households, but when the UK economy is in such a huge mess, and is so badly run, it is the rich and some confidence that you badly need to attract and encourage.

      The blatant dishonesty of a promise to introduce £1M IHT levels (made in 2007, that now will not come in until at least until after 2019 – and almost certainly not even then) is an outrage from Osborne. Just as the lies from Cast Iron, on the treaty, were. This and all the “it is no longer a treaty it is part of EU law” fig leaf dishonesty.

      Still it won’t affect me, I have left. I am always surprise that far more (other than NonDoms) do not leave the UK than already do. Perhaps they have not seen how much 50% income tax, 40% IHT, 20% VAT, 23% NI, 28% CGT, 15% stamp duty and the rest, all do to steal nearly all your capital over just a few years.

      Relative to house prices the IHT threshold should be about £600K by now anyway not £325K.

      How can one hold this government in other than complete contempt? True Miliband (voice of the state sector unions) is worse but only very slightly.

      Reply As the public did not elect a Conservative government in 2010 there was no way we could deliver the full Conservative manifesto. It was not a lie, just an impossibility!

      • lifelogic
        Posted February 13, 2013 at 7:13 am | Permalink

        To reply – So why delay it to 2019 not 2015? If it was not a lie? They should have got the boundary reforms and the IHT promised and actually delivered with the coalition agreement. Perhaps letting the Libdems have an absurd graduate tax instead of them ratting on their student fees pledge in return.

        Clearly it was just not a priority to the Tories to keep promises they would rather rat on them. If agreement was not possible they should have let Labour sort out the mess they had made. We might then now have the possibility of a relatively sensible government in 2015. As it is we have pro EU, tax borrow and waste, ratting socialist in now and worse Miliband in 2015.

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

      GPs are some of the NHS professionals who work at the coal-face of mass immigration. Their unions instruct them to deal with all-comers without question. This costs a fortune. Many of these people do not speak any English and have very expensive diseases to treat. Some of them do not show up and waste the time of GPs and interpreters. There appear to be no consequences for this behaviour. A substantial number of city centre practices are taking on new patients who are almost exclusively asylum-seekers or migrants of one kind or another.
      This is open-door mass immigration combined with the welfare state.

      Reply Legal migrants have the same right to NHS treatment as anyone else. Health tourists do not have this right, and where they seek treatment they or their country is meant to be billed for it. The govt is now looking at how the NHS can get sharper at requiring payments where they are due.

      • Iain Gill
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

        yea but any serious “health tourist” just comes in on a work or student visa, or a visa of a family member accompanying a work or student visa holder, and they are “entitled” to free nhs from day one – regardless of the fact many are seriously ill before they set off for these shores.

        • lifelogic
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 11:24 am | Permalink

          Indeed.

      • Timaction
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

        After 19 months of Liberal led coalition the Government is “now looking at it”. With over 10 million migrants and rising over the last 15 years, you’re just starting to look at it. I loath being taxed for this obscene betrayal of native Brits, particularly the English who are becoming an ever reducing number in our own major Cities. Migration for the low paid as well as the rest are costing us a fortune in subsidised public services whilst employers drive wages down, leaving usd to pick up the tax tab.
        What are the plans for the (many migrants-ed) due from Bulgaria/Romania next year or are the Governement going to wait and see?

      • lifelogic
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

        To reply:-

        Do you really think this will happen, in reality?

      • Max Dunbar
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 12:09 am | Permalink

        This may seem like a rather obvious question, but if someone comes here as a Health tourist in the first place how are you going to get any money out of either them or their country of origin? It does not strike me as either a realistic or practical proposition.

        Reply: You ask for their credit card, insurance policy or home state claim form before undertaking the medical work.

        • Dennis
          Posted February 17, 2013 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

          Mr Redwood,

          You relied re charging NHS tourists-
          Reply: You ask for their credit card, insurance policy or home state claim form before undertaking the medical work.

          They have or say they have no credit card, insurance nor home state claim form. Are you saying NHS will not then treat them opening the NHS to be sued for at least £1 million?

          Reply Emergency treatment only, otherwise they can return to their home country earlier to get treated there.

    • Jerry
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

      @Boudicca: “Another U-turn; another kick in the crotch for people who ‘did the right thing’ and saved, bought a house and tried to provide for themselves and their families.

      Err what are you on about, your savings have nothing to do with IHT, the clue is in the name Inheritance Tax, and even then if you plan for your retirement, care-costs and bequests your estate might never be subjected to IHT (for what I understand).

      Another punishment for middle-class families who have a relatively small amount of wealth to cascade down the generations

      If your relationship with your children/grandchildren is such that you can not risk passing on your wealth whilst living then that says more that the rate of (or even the existence of) IHT, never mind having a rant about U-turns – and migrants!

      • David Price
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:55 am | Permalink

        There are strict limits on how much you can pass to your children while you are living before tax penalties are applied so IHT set at a level that guarantees it will apply to any property in an estate impacts peoples ability to make provision for their family.

        Perhaps you have not looked in to these matters for your own family or had to deal with the complexities of probate, inheritance tax and executorship while grieving the loss of a relative.

        What do you think happens to someone’s savings when the die?

        • lifelogic
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

          Actually there are limits if you want to put it into trust for children (£650K for a couple). Otherwise there are none, it is a potentially exempt transfer (unless you do not survive seven years) it is IHT free. If you are in good health you can always take cheapish life cover to cover the risk.

          The real problem is someone with nearly all their assets in a house they wish to keep living in. Then rules about gifts with reservation stop them very doing much.

          The rich do not pay very much, only the middle rich have to pay as usual.

          • David Price
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 8:26 am | Permalink

            The 7 years is one of the strict limits you worry about if you are not in good health … I believe you are limited to 3k pa as gifts, including wedding gifts, without the recipient being subjected to tax.

            Your comments on insurance illustrate my concern, why can’t I simply gift whatever amount of my assests to my children, or whoever? Why should I have to jump through hoops of insurance, trusts and other palaver. No wonder it is so difficult for entrepreneurs in this country.

          • livelogic
            Posted February 15, 2013 at 6:34 am | Permalink

            I agree you should be able to gift it when you like without any taxes.

            But at the moment you have to gift it and live seven years and you cannot gift the house and still live in it. Live cover just for the seven years can often be quite cheap though.

    • Nick
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

      Just like the LibDems. They lied over Tuition fees. Now we get the Tories doing the same.

      If its in the manifesto, you should vote for the 1 million. Otherwise, we conclude that the Tories will lie to get elected.

      Reply The Lib Dems and Labour would simply vote down the IHT policy of the Conservative 2010 Manifesto.

      • David Price
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

        Re: reply
        Cameron needs to demonstrate he is a really Conservative and not a LibDem. If the Libdems don’t like something then force the vote in parliament anyway so there is a clear track record of Conservatives trying to press for conservative measures and LibDems (and Labour) blocking such initiatives.

        Come election time there would be a clear indication of striving to make changes but as things stand it looks like Cameron is a not a Conservative at all, demonstrates a lack of loyalty to his MPs and supporters and is using the Libdems as an excuse not to do certain things.

        Or do you want the Libdems grabbing all the kudos for the “good” conservative initiatives as well as blocking the ones they don’t like?

        • Jerry
          Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

          @David Price: What you are suggesting would simply test the resolve of the coalition agreement, at the moment the only party who will suffer is the Tories, call a snap election for early March and I strongly suspect that we would be either discussing who might now lead the Tory party or what Mr Cameron can do now he is back as leader of the opposition.

          Some people still don’t seem to have accepted that Cameron doesn’t have the room to play political games, if he had there would have been no need form a coalition, he might not be in the sort of desperate position that Callaghan found himself in after the Lib-Lab pack collapsed but he would be very weak. Wake up and smell the coffee!

          • David Price
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 10:13 am | Permalink

            I am not advocating political games, I am advocating transparency so the electorate are clear on who supports what and who was responsible for what, so that we may apply the duck test.

            I suggest this because I have acquired the impression that I cannot trust what certain politicians say, only what they do. I wouldn’t be surprised if many other people think that. This seems top be the opposite of what the politically endowed think … that the electorate only believe what politicians say and the important thing is how you say it.

          • Jerry
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

            @David Price: “I am not advocating political games,”

            You might not be advocating it but that is what you will get.

          • lifelogic
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 7:21 am | Permalink

            “Cameron doesn’t have the room to play political games” – well firstly that is his fault for loosing the last sitting duck election – through total incompetence.

            Secondly he does have room, but he must be prepared to take the risk of losing power. After all Labour would be virtually the same as the pro EU, socialist, Cameron anyway.

            Clearly personal power for Cameron is all that motivates him. It is that and his duff policies and cast rubber ratting that render him so weak.

          • Jerry
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

            Lifelogic, you do talk a load on political nonsense, as someone actually living in the UK (unlike you…) I can tell you that a Tory government is and will always be a totally different kettle of fish to a (Nu)Labour government.

            As for sitting duck elections, you fail to realise that most voters seemed to be feed up with the (then) Labour Leader (calling elderly ladies “Bigots” whilst still mic’ed-up didn’t help his cause) but that is different to saying that they disproved of the political manifesto, and as the (adjusted [1]) opinion poles and election result actually showed it was not a “sitting duck” election.

        • livelogic
          Posted February 15, 2013 at 6:34 am | Permalink

          Indeed

      • Val
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

        Reply
        The Tories KNEW that the LibDems would vote everything down when they went into coalition… so they ARE to blame. If they couldn’t get a majority against Brown after he squandered the economy and everything he could lay his hands on… then there is something very wrong in their choice of leader …. and still is!

        • Jerry
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 11:22 am | Permalink

          @Val: Funny that, I though it was a banking crisis, not building hospitals or homes etc. that squandered the economy…

          Or do you really believe that a government should sit moribund, waiting for that call from the banks to inform No. 11 that they were on the brink of going bust and that there is a run on the banks under way?!

      • lifelogic
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

        Who caused the loss of the last, sitting duck, election? Was it Cameron’s EU cast rubber agenda or his allowing of equal TV billing to Clegg, his refusal to do a deal with UKIP, his quack green agenda, his high tax borrow and waste agenda? Or perhaps the fact that promises, like the £1M IHT one and the EU one could clearly be ditched at will by cast rubber anyway.

        I suspect it was mainly his failure to give an uplifting, small state, low tax, pro UK democracy agenda to the country and his very clear lack of any real beliefs or principals. Hence David Laws and Chris Huhne in the cabinet yet a big lack of sensible members despite several being on the back benches.

        • Max Dunbar
          Posted February 13, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

          Agreed, but I have to reluctantly admit that my area of the UK did it’s usual job of wrecking the chances of a Tory majority at the last election. Also the fact that Labour deliberately promoted, and still promotes, mass immigration. Allegedly, 80% of immigrants vote Labour. The demographic of the electorate has no doubt been shifted very much in favour of socialists in recent years. This, however, does not let Cameron off the hook for not gaining a majority at the last election.

      • The PrangWizard
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

        I have often heard the comment that ‘it can’t be done because Labour and the LibDems would vote against it’. I am not well versed in parliamentary procedures, but this sounds very defeatist.

        If the government had the will would it not want to go ahead anyway? It may get credit for having the courage of its convictions. Is it just that it wants to avoid the ‘embarassment’ of losing the vote. Just why isn’t it done?

        By giving up without a fight it simply lets everyone down and looses the support it might otherwise retain. And obviously people naturally think ‘they didn’t mean it’.

        Reply: Any government proposal needs Lib Dem sign off! Conservative Ministers cannot bring forward Conservative manifesto proposals or similar without Lib Dem agreement.

      • lifelogic
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

        To reply:- so why 2019 not 2015? Just complete contempt for the electorate I assume.

    • alan jutson
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

      Boudicca

      Agree absolutely.

      Nothing more to add, other than to say, we have been screwed again.

    • Robert K
      Posted February 12, 2013 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

      Boudicca
      Good points

    • Firewalker
      Posted February 13, 2013 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

      Did anyone notice a Conservative government being formed in 2010? Did we conservtives win the 2010 general election? No it did not and we did not.

      We have a coalition, which is better than a Brown minority government jerrymandering things. But a coalition government is not something we have to like, but stop pretending we have the votes to deliver anything outside the agreement.

      To pretend otherwise is utter stupidity and a failure to understand the situation. You just sound like kippers stuck in their neo-nutter bunker.

  2. Lord Blagger
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    More tax, solves every ill from economic malaise, to the Queen’s itch

  3. Bob
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    Why is it so difficult to provide care to the elderly when the government can effortlessly rustle up £4 billion to increase the foreign aid budget to £12 billion and increase donations to the EU courtesy of Tony Blair who incidentally is doing a great job of shielding his own money from the taxman.

    People who have paid into the system their whole lives should be able to expect the same treatment as people who have never worked and never saved, otherwise the message is don’t work, don’t pay tax and don’t save. Let the state take care of you. Selling the homes of people that go into care is IHT by stealth.

    The Tories should call time on this coalition, it’s not fit for purpose.

    • Chris
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:42 am | Permalink

      Yes, the government seems to have got its priorities very wrong. Westminster Council was featured on a BBC investigation the other night and apparently it was uncovered that the Council were quite happily paying out huge sums of money to house immigrants in 4 star hotels – one example, not atypical apparently, was a family with 8 children who were housed in 4 star accommodation at a cost to eht taxpayer of £12,000 per month. We simply cannot afford this, but more importantly surely newcomers should not take priority over elderly UK residents who are forced to sell home to fund very high care fees, even though they have recognised medical conditions. Very few people have the resources and energy to chase health trusts for continuing care funding and a family are likely to get worn down or their loved one die before funding is gained.

      • Jerry
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

        @Chris: Not the best example of a London council to use when talking about the (obvious) lack of LA housing!

    • Jerry
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

      @Bob: “The Tories should call time on this coalition, it’s not fit for purpose.

      Careful for what you wish for Bob, that would result in a GE – a straight Labour victory, the LDs in either second or a Lib-Lab coalition (whilst the Tories and UKIP squab over third and fourth place as the Tory vote gets spilt) anyone?…

      • JoolsB
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

        @Bob: “The Tories should call time on this coalition, it’s not fit for purpose.”

        “Careful for what you wish for Bob, that would result in a GE – a straight Labour victory, the LDs in either second or a Lib-Lab coalition (whilst the Tories and UKIP squab over third and fourth place as the Tory vote gets spilt) anyone?…”

        Not necessarily if the Tories would only address the English Question, something else they’ve reneged on but then why would they wish to start standing up for England when they’ve done anything but so far? As it’s only old age pensioners in England who will be clobbered for £75K and that’s only care with maybe another £75k added on for accommodation just as it’s only students in England who will be clobbered by £9K fees has proved that Cameron and the party pretending to be Tory couldn’t give a stuff about England. Squeeze the English till the pips squeek seems to be their motto. The people of England have been betrayed by the party who rely on them for their support so we should all let them know what we think of them come the next election and if that let’s the incompetent anti-English Labour party back in again – what’s the difference? Better to see England being shafted by Labour than the so called Conservative party!

        • Jerry
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 11:43 am | Permalink

          @JoolsB: “if the Tories would only address the English Question, something else they’ve reneged on

          Err how are the Tories going to tackle “the English Question” without LibDem (or other cross party) support in the current parliament – again you seem one of those who think that Cameron is being lazy or something whilst sitting pretty with a stomping 200 seat majority!

        • The PrangWizard
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

          Well said JoolsB.
          We the English, are endlessly ignored, insulted and ridiculed; by the same people – MPs in the BRITISH parliament, the BBC, which does not recognise the unity of England, the Leftist/Liberal intelligentsia and the Establishment – who recognise the right of the people of the other nations to determine their own futures, and encourage them in it. Patronising hypocrites.

          And in the debate in parliament yesterday about Social Care Statement, there were SNP and Welsh MPs in attendance. The Welsh simply wanted to know how much money they would be given under the Barnett formula, and the SNP said of course all this was free in Scotland.

          It appals me that English MPs don’t have the courage to speak up unequivocally and clearly for a new English parliament. Some are playing round the edges, some pretend. Why are they so afraid? They are perfectly aware of the situation. And when for example will the goverment not recognise the reality, and re-title the ‘Secretary of State for Health’ ‘for England’?

          The English will not willingly remain invisible for much longer.

      • formula57
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

        Oh no! Not a Labour victory!

        Would that mean an increase in IHT? An inability to control the deficit? Increasing debt? Let us hope we are spared.

        • Jerry
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 11:32 am | Permalink

          @formula57: Indeed, for “Bob” a Labour victory would mean the “Commies” are coming – judging by some of his rants!…

    • Nick
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

      Very simple. They’ve hidden 5,300 bn off the UK government’s books.

      12 bn in the scale of the mess in the UK government’s account a spec of dust.

      • Bob
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

        @Nick
        That’s £12 billion per annum, it’s not a cumulative figure.
        And don’t forget we haven’t got that much money, so we’re having to borrow it, so we’ll be paying interest on it too!

  4. Richard1
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    Get rid of it completely as Sweden has done. It is not an effective tax and is a disincentive to wealth creation and to investment and domicile in the UK.

    • stred
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:23 am | Permalink

      If we move to Sweden, or other EU countries with lower tax rates, do we still have to pay it in the UK on savings in the UK?

      • lifelogic
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

        Indeed you do, and worse still you pay 40% IHT on all your worldwide assets, even if you do not live in the UK any more – unless you have lost your UK “domicile” – then just on UK assets if that is the case.

        The 2015 manifesto is pretty irrelevant. Cameron has given up on being re-elected. Perhaps he is looking for a job at the EU? He certainly has shown compete contempt for the electorate, which is largely reciprocated as far as I can see – and certainly amongst Tories.

        The man is proving to be even worse than even Heath and Major quite a low bar for anyone to crawl beneath. With Heath everyone at least knew he was pro EU socialist, and with Major you just felt he was rather dim. But with Cameron/Osborne there is a total lack of trust and a blatant dishonesty and clear ratting on promises made and without any excuse.

        • stred
          Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

          Thanks. No escape for me and some of family then. The PRM and his boys are probably discounting my vote, as I know too much from experience. The brighter family members will be advised to get out.

        • Jerry
          Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

          Actually I thought it quite funny when Cameron was heir to Thatcher in the house today, hardly a compliment if talking about EU affairs, after all it was Thatcher who helped create the beast we now call the EU, first with the signing of the Single European Act and then the move towards the Maastricht Treaty…

          I can’t help thinking that Cameron is more likely heir to Heath in this respect, what both really want(ed) is just free trade, Heath’s mistake was not realising just how obsessed and determined some within the then EEC and european governments were to reach their European Nirvana, I fear that Cameron might be about to make the same mistake!

      • Richard1
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

        I doubt this site would want responsibility for giving tax advice, but as I understand it to get out of IHT you have to move your domicile – normally very hard & would entail at least being non-resident for a good period.

        • lifelogic
          Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

          Indeed you need to detach yourself from your government “slave owner” completely.

        • lifelogic
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 5:50 am | Permalink

          Indeed – unless you are nondom already.

    • life
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

      Exactly – it does not even raise much and it creates pointless parasitic work for lawyers and tax planners too.

    • Wonky Moral Compass
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

      Agreed, ditch the 40% death (double) tax. Charge CGT to the beneficiaries on the amount above their tax-free allowance, if you must.

      • Nick
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

        No double taxation should be the rule.

        • Jerry
          Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

          @ WMC: @Nick: When was this ‘income’ first taxed, in this life or the last?…

        • uanime5
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

          Given that everything you earn is subject to income tax this would prevent the Government introducing any other taxes. So don’t expect your rule to be adopted.

    • Reg Thompson
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

      Exactly. Anyone like me with a modest house worth half a million in the South-East of England would be wise to consider moving across the channel on retirement. That’s my plan- sell up at 60 and take my money to France. I will be able to give my two children a hundred grand each, buy a nice property in Brittany for less than hundred and fifty grand and still have a comfortable nest egg- the money a future government would rob from my estate !

      • Jerry
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

        Reg, perhaps not if the UK leave the EU, who knows what the residence and tax rules might be…

    • uanime5
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

      Perhaps we should also adopt the Swedish rules on pay so that IHT would effect the average person, rather than only effect the wealthy.

      • Max Dunbar
        Posted February 13, 2013 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

        You really mean “affect” I think?

  5. Electro-Kevin
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    With government spending on the increase there is no choice but to tax the people with the ability to pay – ever more inventive ways to do so will be found.

    I disagree with the policy and am simply stating it as it is.

    I do think that offspring have a bit of a cheek expecting the state to look after their infirm parents whilst expecting all the inheritance for themselves.

    • Electro-Kevin
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

      It can’t be right that care homes charge fee paying residents extra in order to subsidise those who have never saved or who have no assets.

      For that matter nor can it be right that you have more welfare entitlement if you have never paid National Insurance.

      Isn’t there a common theme throughout all this ?

      Where is the party to stand up for the people who try to do the right things ?

      • Jerry
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

        @Electro-Kevin: “It can’t be right that care homes charge fee paying residents extra in order to subsidise those who have never saved or who have no assets.

        Why ever not! Are we not living in, and they working within, a free market, if you do not like the fees charged by a care home then you can chose to give your business to another – or do some want ‘regulation’ when it suits them but no ‘anti free market regulation’ if it would only suit others?

        • Electro-Kevin
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

          Point taken, Jerry.

      • David Price
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:58 am | Permalink

        There is no party that stands up for our interests.

        • Bob
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

          @Dave Price

          If we stand up for ukip, ukip will stand up for us.

          The establishment parties have been in situ too long, and they’ve developed a sense of entitlement akin to the ever increasing population of moochers.

          • David Price
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

            @Bob – UKIP have been an established party in the EP – which of our interests have they protected?

          • Bob
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

            @David Price

            The EP is just a conveyor belt rubber stamping operation for batches of directives from the EU commission, it’s stuffed full of EUphiles from member states, and there’s nothing the likes of Farage and Hannan can do there apart from using it as a platform to makes speeches which no one listens to, and the BBC completely ignore.

            We need to get UKIP MPs into the House of Commons to make any difference.

            Have a look at ukip’s policies on the website, and if you like what you see and want to make a difference, then you know what to do.

            Reply The European Parkliament isd now a legislature in its own right. Mr Farage and Conservative MEPs need to mobilise mroe MEP opinion in our favour, as with the forthcoming vote on the budget framework.

          • Jerry
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

            @Bob: “If we stand up for ukip, ukip will stand up for us.

            Yes indeed, just like a Weather vane…

            Were other parties lead, UKIP follows!

          • David Price
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

            @Bob: I didn’t put the point well. I don’t believe you can rely on a party to stand up for your interests, events over the last several years have demonstrated this beyond all doubt.

            You cannot influence a party, or a paper or the BBC …

            All you can do is vote for an individual MP and try to influence that MP in the context of your interests. At the least you stand more chance with the individual than the party, unless you are very, very wealthy or influential in your own right.

            Or, you can chose not to vote at all.

  6. Disaffected
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    Neither John. No sensible person would believe anything written in them. Three issues in the last week alone demonstrate why not to vote Tory or to listen to them. After 299 taxes, gay marriage, inheritance tax.

    As it was written this morning, 20-60% income tax (including NI), VAT 20%, fuel tax 67%, 20-240% tax on savings, 20-40 % on inheritance tax. No public spending cuts as you have regularly highlighted. Osborne claimed there would be a 80/20% split in cuts and tax increases. Who believes Cameron as a “low tax Conservative?” Anyone still stupid enough to believe he is Eurosceptic? I do believe he is “heir toBlaire” I do believe he is a “liberal conservative”- emphasis on liberal. I do believe he is a Europhile through and through. I do believe he holds grass root Tories in contempt as he does the public. I do believe he will lose the next election.

    • Electro-Kevin
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 11:50 am | Permalink

      What was gay marriage (which I agree with) but a gauntlet thrown down to taunt true conservatives and the party faithful ?

    • uanime5
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

      NI is 2% for those in the 50% tax rate, so the maximum rate of income tax is 52%, not 60%. Also including NI the minimum tax rate is 32%.

      • Edward
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

        Uni,
        You are leaving out the employers part of the NI tax that is paid to the State.

        • uanime5
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

          Employer’s NI is not 8% so the figures are still wrong.

      • lifelogic
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

        Plus employer NI on top.

        • uanime5
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

          Employer’s NI is not paid by employees, nor is it 8%.

          • David Price
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

            From the employer’s perspective the employer’s NI is part of the cost of an employee, a part of the loaded labour rate used to calculate earnings per employee, productivity etc along with all the other overheads of employing someone.

          • Edward
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

            No its more than 8%
            Come on keep up.

          • lifelogic
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 7:27 am | Permalink

            In practice it is indeed paid by employees as it clearly lowers the wages employers can offer.

            I did not say it was 8% – it goes up to 13.8% on top of the employees rate.

          • Jerry
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

            @Lifelogic: “In practice it is indeed paid by employees as it clearly lowers the wages employers can offer.

            Fair point LL but many worry that any employer savings will not get passed on to the employee in higher pay or other benefits, such as in-work training etc.

  7. MajorFrustration
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    Why not stick to the Andrew Dilnut plan. I dont think that mentioned any limiting on inflation linking to IHT allowances. Why is it that he keep having these expensive reviews and then ignore them. Come the next election where on the back benches doe DC intend to sit.

    Reply Dilnot did not explain how to pay for his epxensive plan.

    • MajorFrustration
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

      I take your point. I am not sure if there is an answer. But it does hurt that IHT is capped when for some three years or more the BoE has failed to control inflation -no doubt Merv’s pension will be index linked.
      I just have that strong sense that any aspirations one has to look after ones family and leave something for future generations is completely pointless – although one will continue to try.
      DC has certainly lost the next election – Middle England will exact its pound of political flesh on him and future manifestos will be seen as pointless waffle.

  8. Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    If this freeze, which breaks a manifesto promise, is purely to satisfy the LibDems, the Conservatives should make it very clear, particularly in Eastleigh.
    But more importantly, it makes any future Conservative manifesto not worth the paper it is written on. If they can bring in proposals like gay marriage, which weren’t in the manifesto and don’t increase the threshold for inheritance tax, which was, then why even bother with a manifesto? Why not tell the truth, for once, “We haven’t a clue what we are going to do, but if we get elected we will tell you when we have made up our minds”

    • Jerry
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

      @English Pensioner: “If this freeze, which breaks a manifesto promise, is purely to satisfy the LibDems, the Conservatives should make it very clear, particularly in Eastleigh.

      Does this break the coalition agreement, if so then perhaps the Eastleigh by-election should be converted into a GE…

      You seem to be forgetting that no manifesto pledge actually gained a (working) majority so no manifesto promise is being broken as such.

  9. Glenn Vaughan
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    Personally I favour the 2015 policy you describe John but manifestos have ceased to mean anything significant when it come to governing.

  10. yulwaymartyn
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    The 2013 version.

  11. DadOf3
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    The 2015 one.

    I generally consider Inheritance Tax to be rather illiberal and unfair, but perhaps less so than other taxes. With so many of modest means suffering under austerity measures, and with little sign of improvement soon, promising a tax relief to the children of the wealthy seems particularly unfair.

    • Graham
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:46 am | Permalink

      Why do you feel it right for you to take a share of someone elses money that they have worked for all their lives?

      • Jerry
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

        Graham, but the recipient(s) has not worked for this money, most likely mummy or daddy did (or possibly in some cases Grandfather or Grandmother)… I think you are forgetting why IHT is having to be paid!

        • David Price
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 9:03 am | Permalink

          but it was the earner’s decision that the funds go to their children or cat’s home or whatever, whereas you want to give it to people who didn’t earn it either but had no relationship with the deceased whatsoever.

          Do you believe in the family and taking responsibility of the welfare of family members?

          • Jerry
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

            @David Price: “Do you believe in the family and taking responsibility of the welfare of family members?

            Yes I do but that is a totally different argument to that of IHT, if not you are arguing against all tax, but then perhaps you are…

            What is wrong with life-long giving, why do so many people insist on hamster like hoarding of their wealth? The reforms to IHT I would like to see would revolve around the problems faced when someone dies at an unusually early age due to illness or accident and thus might not have had opportunity to to organise their tax affairs, people who have lived long enough to require old-age care have also lived long enough to organise their tax affairs.

          • uanime5
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

            Then the “earner” should have given their descendants this money while they were still alive.

          • David Price
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 8:37 am | Permalink

            @Jerry: It is all part of the same argument – if the state has not contributed the funds then the state should not dictate how and when I provide funds to my family or dependents or whoever. You may prefer life long giving but that is your preference. Most parents try to do that anyway but if you want to help a dependent buy their first house or start a business there are complications.

            The state tries to interfer far too much in our lives – IHT and other social engineering taxes/meddling should be abolished.

          • Jerry
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

            @David Price: “…if the state has not contributed the funds then the state should not dictate how and when…

            Nor has the recipient (spouses have different IHT rules these days), why should they get an unearned tax free lump sum why should it not be treated as any other income and be taxed accordingly?

            You may prefer life long giving but that is your preference. Most parents try to do that anyway but if you want to help a dependent buy their first house or start a business there are complications.”

            Then it would be better to sort out those “complications” than open a post death floodgate of (possible) tax abuses.

            The state tries to interfer far too much in our lives – IHT and other social engineering taxes/meddling should be abolished.

            In other words, the fittest to the lifeboats, the weak to take their chances in the water….

      • David Price
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 9:00 am | Permalink

        Graham … aand that they have already paid taxes on.

    • alan jutson
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

      Dadof3

      The money you speak of has been taxed already, as its earned income which has been saved.

      So you could have already paid 40-50% on it, now you think another 40% is fair.

      • Jerry
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:41 pm | Permalink

        Alan, not by the recipient though, why should such people not pay tax on (un earnt) income, please do explain?

        • Edward
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

          Because Jerry, say you received some money from an inheritance you can do a few things with it:-
          1 Save it, the money gains interest and you pay tax on the interest
          2 Invest it in a business of some sort, you will pay all sorts of taxes in the business
          3 Spend it,you will pay tax on your spending.
          4 Put it into a pension fund, you will pay tax on it when you take the pension
          5 Buy assets , you will pay tax on any profits when you dispose of these assets
          And of course when you die, if you now have assets totalling more than £325k the state will take 40%
          You would want the deceased persons already taxed money to be taxed again on handing over to the benficiary as unearned income. And then taxed a third time when you spend invest or save the inheritance.
          Once is enough. Three times would be outrageous State theft.

          • Jerry
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 11:12 pm | Permalink

            @Edward: But all of that could have been done, or prevented, during the lifetime of the person making the bequest.

          • Edward
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

            Jerry,
            There are limits on how much you can give away in your lifetime to your children.
            Assuminmg you have the cash available to do so because many are asset rich but cash poor.
            And many other problems in giving away the family home and still living in it during your lifetime.
            Its not as simple as you make out.

        • a-tracy
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

          Jerry,

          Those people that don’t work in the public sector or in final salary guaranteed pension sectors such as the old nationalised industries, tend to have to rely on their savings and investments to ensure they have enough income coming in from said savings and investments to stop them being a burden on the State by having their housing rent and rates paid for or subsidised, and in order to live and maintain their homes. If they have any surplus funds left over after not being a burden on other taxpayers then it is the people of their choosing that should have their residual savings that have already been taxed and the interest taxed again whilst they were living.

          • Jerry
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

            @a-tracy: Err, by the time IHT might be due “those people” are dead, and sorry because of that I really didn’t understand your point…

        • alan jutson
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

          Jerry

          So if you like the IHT system, why not start with no tax free limit at all. 40 to go to the government on everything over £1

          But it is taxed when you are alive because if you give it away and then die before 7 years are up the recipients will have a tax liability.

          Thus if they have invested the money in a family house (deposit etc) they may be forced to sell it.

          • Jerry
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

            @alan jutson: Yes the 7 year rule is wrong, this aspect of IHT should be abolished but I suspect doing so would simply open the flood gates to abuses.

            Perhaps there needs to be rules that allow such recipients to either be exempt or the tax tapered somehow, depending on how the bequest has been used – thus someone who has done nothing more than invest in general stocks and shares or high rate interest bank account might well have to pay the full IHT should the person making the bequest die before the 7 years is up but someone who has used it to invest in a family house or directly into a business for example would have little or nothing to pay?

  12. Wilko
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    If children inherit a care bill instead of their deceased parents’ home, maybe a simple flat would be all they could afford.

    Peter was forcibly non-domiciled from his own home, sold, solely to pay for care. Paul, who wasted and owned nothing, received free care, at others’ expense. Any levy at that rate is unfair.

    The difference between 2010 & 2015 is marginal. At the growth in Nursing Care expense, even £2015 might last only a few days. Any levy at that rate is unaffordable. The described cap applies only to ‘personal care’, excluding the high expense of accommodation.

    Many suggest that those who want the peace of mind of care in old age should consider insurance. Some suggest it should be compulsory. Let’s create a new idea! How about National Insurance? Free from the cradle to the grave; unless you pay for it.

    • Jerry
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 11:12 pm | Permalink

      @Wilko: “Peter was forcibly non-domiciled from his own home, sold, solely to pay for care. Paul, who wasted and owned nothing, received free care, at others’ expense.

      One has to ask who was the clever one of the two, Peter who lived a pious life but bought his bricks and mortar, or Paul who lived a life of Hedonistic pleasures but rented his bricks and mortar?!

      But satire and jealousy aside, what (do you think) should happen to Paul, should he be turfed out to wonder the street in a demented state possibly not knowing what year it is never mind the day of the week, or perhaps he should be left bed-bound in his rented flat to die, but perhaps the real answer is just to tax (ring fenced it if you like) people of working age, indexed to earnings, so that no one needs to pay for such health care, it could even treat the working age sick and their children – I know, we could call it a “National Health Service”…

      • Wilko
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 11:34 am | Permalink

        Peter & Paul were probably equal in being able to choose whatever decisions they preferred each moment, throughout their lives. Both should be treated carefully. Deserving people should receive charity, funded by tax.

        If Paul’s condition needs care, it should be provided free. The solution should not be one of cushioning difficulties after they have occurred, but helping prevent such situations from developing, early.

        A simple, efficient “National Health Service” would be refreshing. Its entire budget could be funded from a tax on fuel at source. The cost would automatically permeate fairly via all products & services, reaching everyone throughout their lives.

        All Paul’s heavy drinking & gambling would contribute to the cost of his care, from the heat used to mould the glass of the whisky bottle, to the light illuminating the gents at his pub, to the power used in the production of the ball bearing on the roulette wheel, which landed on a red number, creating his inability to pay.

  13. Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    I just like a party that kept it’s word and stuck to a policy suited to the ideals of it’s self and the interests of it’s supporters.

  14. zorro
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    John, one assumes that you don’t intend to support the 2015 one……. So, the rationale is that they couldn’t implement the 2010 one because of the Liberals, so they decide to include the new one in what is supposedly to be a Conservative manifesto in 2015. If I am not mistaken, that is pretty good evidence that the supposedly Conservative part of this administration is using the Lib Dems as a fig leaf cover for what they want to do anyway. This backs up my theory that it would not have made a blind bit of difference overall to Cameron’s policies in practice if he had a 200 majority. In fact, I bet that he would not have listened to his Euro rebels as much as he has done with his very reduced (Lib Dem supported) majority in this parliament….. theoretical cast elasticism in practice, his governing philosophy.

    zorro

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 11:01 am | Permalink

      Well, of course some go further and suggest that Cameron deliberately sought not to get an overall Tory majority so that he would have to go into coalition with the LibDems and could then use them as a figleaf … that does seem a bit far-fetched, but on the other hand for quite a long time before the election there was talk of cosying up to the LibDems, and shifting policies in that direction itself made it more likely that he would not get an overall majority …

  15. wab
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    The problem with inheritance tax is not the threshold per se (which is arbitrary of course). The problem is that it is biased towards people who are married (or in civil partnerships), apparently because married people are morally superior, or something like that, and so should be taxed less.

    • Electro-Kevin
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 11:57 am | Permalink

      It is shown that married people cost less in health care costs and their children less in the criminal justice system

      “He comes from a broken home.” being a common plea for mitigation by defence lawyers.

      • Jerry
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

        @Kevin: It is stable relationships that are the key, married couples and their families can be some of the most dysfunctional people in society, a single unmarried mother who allows regular access for the father and were the father helps to fund and care for his offspring can be some of the most functional ‘families’ in society.

    • Bob
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

      @wab
      The problem is that IHT has not been phased out.

      Without this tax it would not matter whether you were married or single.
      You should be able to do whatever you wish with your savings and investments.

      Don’t let them take your eye off of the ball, government waste and corruption is the real problem.

  16. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    The freeze of which you speak, as you say, started when this government took office. This means that there will be no increase in the threshold for at least 9 years. This is a stealth tax of which Brown would have been proud, never mind the mendacity of Osborne. Do you wonder why we don’t believe a word that Cameron and Osborne say? The care cost proposals may never see the light of day but the insatiable tax appetite must be fed increasing amounts whilst the government mishandle the economy and continue to borrow, spend and waste. How depressing.

  17. Kevin R. Lohse
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    The 2010 one is a Conservative policy, the 2015 one is a Lib-Dem policy. I vote Conservative, not LibDem. Cameron is daily building the case for his defenestration.

    • Jerry
      Posted February 12, 2013 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

      @Kevin R. Lohse: Don’t let reality or the facts get in the way of dogma…

  18. Iain Gill
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    I think the policy is a bit simplistic.

    It depends where you are inheriting the money from, in terms of their relationship to you, and how they earnt it.

    If your own parents started off with literally nothing, worked their finger to the bone over many years, to renovate their family home and build a small nest egg. In my view 100 % of this should pass to the children untaxed. It puts the right incentives in the system, people can work hard and the money ends up going to their children.

    If you are born into a family of multi millionaires, and most of your older relatives are multi millionaires, and they in turn inherited significant proportions of this money going back through countless generations – I think being able to inherit a million from Great Aunt Dotty and then a million from Uncle Trevor, and so on, is a significant privilege which should be taxed. I do know people in this situation who have no incentive to work too hard themselves, and who have no understanding of how much hard work that money represents.

    Between these two extremes there is a spectrum, which I would tax accordingly.

    The most important issue is the trust funds. As Osborne himself has made clear much of the wealth in his family is passed between the generations using complex trust fund arrangements which avoid tax liabilities. Really I think the ability to hire expensive accountants and lawyers to sort out complex trust fund arrangements should not be able to insulate you from the taxes the rest of the population pay. We need sweeping “equality” here more than gay marriage.

    • Graham
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:51 am | Permalink

      Why don’t you openly admit that your desire to tax is based on envy. The money doesn’t belong to you or the state.

      The people who have this wealth have in most cases paid all the taxes that you have and no doubt more because of their lifestyle.

      • uanime5
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

        Why don’t you openly admit that your desire to avoid tax is based on greed. Why should someone suddenly get a tax free fortune, that they’ve never worked for, just because they were luck enough to be related to someone with money.

        • Edward
          Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

          Uni,
          Because the money belongs to the individual not the State and he or she should be able to decide whether to give it to a charity or a friend or a relative or even to the State if they wish.
          The money or assets the person has developed in their lifetime has already been taxed once.
          And once is enough.

          • uanime5
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

            The recipient hasn’t paid any tax on these assets, so what’s wrong with taxing it?

          • Edward
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

            Because once is enough
            Cant you read?

          • Jerry
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

            @Edward: It is you who doesn’t seem to read, the recipient has never paid any tax on this wealth so yours and others chants of “once is enough” are meaningless and irrelevant!

            Taking your taxation ‘logic’ a step further, an employer has already paid tax on the companies income/profits, does that mean he should not need to pay/deduct income tax from either his own or employees salary?

          • Edward
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

            But the inheritor receives the inheritance money tax paid by the deceased estate and then if he or she saves it, spends it, or invests it, sooner or later more tax will be paid on it.
            Bear in mind that the money built up is money by the decased has had tax paid on it originally when it was income or capital gain so you are asking for the money to be taxed 3 times!

        • Bob
          Posted February 11, 2013 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

          @uanime5
          “Why should someone suddenly get a tax free fortune”?

          Why shouldn’t they, if their parents want them to have their money? What business is it of government? It’s just theft.

          • Jerry
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

            Bob, but you see any tax as theft…

          • uanime5
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

            If their parents wanted them to have the money they should have given it to their children while they were still alive.

        • lifelogic
          Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

          Because it provides a good incentive to their parents.

          Anyway why should someone win the lottery, have a good singing voice, be very good at tennis or become a movie star? Such is life get over it!

          • Jerry
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

            @Lifelogic: “Because it provides a good incentive to their parents.

            Would it not be an even bigger incentive if they were to give this wealth, as gifts or more formal investments, whilst they were alive to actually see their children or grandchildren benefiting from it?

          • uanime5
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

            What incentive does it provide the parents?

            Your examples are completely unrelated to this topic as those people have achieved their success through their own abilities or luck, rather than getting a windfall from their relatives.

          • lifelogic
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 7:30 am | Permalink

            Jerry they often do but it is not always appropriate why should they have to give it early for tax reasons – if they do not choose too?

        • lifelogic
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

          Because the money belongs to the individual not the State and they will, in general, spend or invest it, far better than the State will – and to the benefit of all.

          Greed has nothing to do with it – other than the greed of the State that is.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

        But the people who had this wealth no longer have it when IHT is levied, as they are dead and can no longer own anything; the question is whether it should be taxed when it is passed to others who haven’t paid any taxes connected with its accumulation by the deceased.

        • lifelogic
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 5:54 am | Permalink

          It is an important incentive that people can keep their own money to pass on to children or others.

          Why bother to earn it otherwise, if you do not need it for yourself and the state will just take it off you to waste?

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 9:09 am | Permalink

            I agree, but that still doesn’t mean that beneficiaries should be able to inherit unlimited sums without any tax.

          • Bob
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

            @Denis Cooper
            The fact that anyone with a large fortune can avoid it means that the only people who pay it are those who can’t afford to avoid it, or lack sufficient financial nouse.

            In view of the fact that it contributes a relatively small percentage to the treasury after you take into account the cost of collecting it and it just adds to the misery of bereaved children forced to sell their family home to pay it, it appears to be purely an “envy tax”.

          • lifelogic
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

            Denis why not they will spend it better than the State almost certainly. But perhaps 10% not 40%!

      • Bazman
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

        Nothing to do with envy, We are not all a simple as you. Inheritance tax is the most progressive of taxes. The tax not being higher helps the wealthy pay for their care. The rest of us will have to hand over our houses is that just envy?

        • lifelogic
          Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

          Is that just envy? – well clearly yes.

          • Bazman
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

            As pointed out to you before we live in a democracy and we all share in the responsibility to cover the costs of democracy with the rich having a greater responsibility than the rest of us because they receive the most benefit from it. This is why we have “progressive taxes” where the rates are supposed to go up as the income does. This is not envy and your pea brained arguments that the wealthy cascade their wealth down society and should be encouraged to obtain more at the expense of the population is clearly wrong and the idea that they will not pay and leave is also wrong. Your default argument. Wasting it of infrastructure and education that is often the very reason why the rich have so much. The middle income earners are the ones who have taken the hit over the years by your ideas of harnessing the economy for the few and why do you think the Tories have gone back on this ‘huge vote winner’? I notice your apologist fantasies are not in the What is the EU doing about the food scandal? Blog and we know why. Ram it.

          • Edward
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

            Baz
            The top 2% pay over 25% of income tax
            How much would you have them pay.
            Golden gooses and all that.

          • lifelogic
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 7:41 am | Permalink

            @Bazman

            “we live in a democracy” – well not really a vote every five years for the least bad option and someone who lies about what they will do anyway? Also with so much coming from unelected bureaucrats in the EU.

            “progressive taxes” where the rates are supposed to go up as the income does.

            “Supposed to go up” by whom & why? Flat taxes work better but if rates have to go up anything above about 35% or so is entirely counter productive and raises less than the lower rates anyway.

            As I say – What is progressive about stealing peoples money off them and usually wasting it? Or having high tax percentages that distort behaviour and raise less actual actual tax anyway.

          • Bazman
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

            Try reading lifelogic instead of fantasising. I wrote.
            We all share in the responsibility to cover the costs of democracy with the rich having a greater responsibility than the rest of us because they receive the most benefit from it. This is why we have “progressive taxes” where the rates are supposed to go up as the income does. The rich receive more benefit than the rest of us. Is this clear to you?
            Flat taxes would not raise enough and the poorest and the most wealthy would pay the least. There would not be enough the ‘waste on infrastructure and education making it a regressive taxation paid by the middle income earners. Goose and golden egg is right the infrastructure is the goose. The wealthy do not create jobs. demand does.

          • livelogic
            Posted February 15, 2013 at 6:45 am | Permalink

            Bazman

            “The rich receive more benefit than the rest of us” – no they receive far less but pay more.

            They tend to use private medicine, private schools and do not claim social benefits much and pay for their own long terms care, university fees etc. – how on earth would they receive more benefit?

          • Bazman
            Posted February 16, 2013 at 9:17 am | Permalink

            They receive more benefit from infrastructure and political stability which is often what has got them their fortunes and helps them to keep it. You think that the expenses of the country is just what an individual uses their personal lives? you are living in Britain of previous centuries. This idea that we all are living in a bubble or a vacuum separate from the state is your fantasy. The super rich sailing around the world like pirates is a real problem and they need to be treated like pirates not fawned upon by the likes of you and other apologists telling everyone they are ‘envious’. Oh wait! Whats that? It’s a little plane flying over your head! Ram it.

        • lifelogic
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 5:55 am | Permalink

          Ah the weasel word “progressive”.

          • lifelogic
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 5:57 am | Permalink

            What is progressive about stealing peoples money off them and usually wasting it?

      • Iain Gill
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

        In this case I am not guilty of envy. Try you dummies guide to Psychology on someone else.

    • matthu
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

      Iain Gill says “Really I think the ability to hire expensive accountants and lawyers to sort out complex trust fund arrangements should not be able to insulate you from the taxes the rest of the population pay.”

      I am in a situation where I manage (and complete a tax return) for one small trust with a vulnerable parent as a beneficiary while considering the need to set up another small trust to care for a vulnerable child.

      I have no wish to saddle my offspring with onerous and completely disproportionate tax affairs but it is obvious to me that the taxation of small trusts is now vastly overcomplicated because it has been designed to block all the loopholes uncovered by wealthy settlors.

      We really do need a very much simpler, more tax efficient trusts to cater for the affirs of vulnerable children.

      • Iain Gill
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

        Simple trusts for any children would be sensible.

        Its the complex trusts that are only available to the seriously rich that distort the markets.

      • lifelogic
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 6:06 am | Permalink

        Indeed simple low tax fewer tax lawyers and accountants = more competitive and richer society and more workers free for actual productive work. We should move towards less litigation too another drag on productivity.

    • life
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

      Just abolish IHT and get rid of these parasitic lawyers and tax planners so they can do something more productive. The government get its cut anyway, on the investment returns, and when spent. It is not their money to waste anyway.

      • Bob
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

        @lifelogic
        “Just abolish IHT and get rid of these parasitic lawyers and tax planners so they can do something more productive”

        Retrain them to work in Mid Staffs to make sure the wards are properly staffed.

  19. Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    I’m not sure about the details of inheritance tax but is there any protection in the case where the next generation are actually living in the family home? Surely a suitable Tory pledge would to be to ensure there is a clause to protect those who are if they can’t raise the general level?

    • lifelogic
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

      There is no protection indeed where the home is the only main asset it is hard to avoid without moving home.

    • alan jutson
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

      Rebecca

      Under the old rules, if your children were living in the family home they were either turfed out, or had to find a way of paying (in full) unless they were more than 60 years old.

      Under the new rules of a £75,000 cap on costs, it is only a cap on actual care costs, you still expected to have to pay the residential fees and food bills, which amounts to about half of the normal weekly cost, thus the fees are not capped at all.

      Read the small print, its even worse than it looks at first glance.

  20. stred
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    The freezing of the threshold for IHT will mean a real reduction of over 40% over the period proposed to £235k in real value, possibly a lot more if inflation is allowed to rip.The new limit of £75k to be paid for long term care will not pay for the first two years, by which most sick people will have died. The limit of savings at which it is not applicable is so low that anyone with their own property or investments over £130k will be excluded.

    In other words, the majority of the middle/skilled classes will lose much more of the value of their estate, after they have paid in full for care if they become ill. And this money will be used to pay for the care of those who have not saved or bought their own house over their lifetime. Possibly, the Treasury will make more out of the scheme than it saves.

    The new Health Minister told us yesterday on ‘Marr’ that this was to save people from having to sell their house. How many people will decide to sell their house in advance, give their savings away and spend it, having listened to his comments?

    It really is hard to believe that these are the same politicians who signed the manifesto. If they had any honour, they would resign and tell the truth. Perhaps they are right that most of the people will be fooled and believe that the Coalition has acted for their benefit. When I tried to explain the changes to a very clever academic who I had appointed as an executor to my will, it became apparent that she though Capital Gains and Inheritance taxes were the same thing. The fact is that politicians can continue to confuse the electorate with untrue language if it is repeated enough times

  21. oldtimer
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    Inheritance tax is nothing less than extortion by the state or legalised grave robbery if you prefer. The 2010 Manifesto statement (I will not honour it with the description “commitment”) offered the prospect of a sensible and long overdue revision of IHT rules. It will never happen. The state is now in such dire financial circumstances that those in charge will continue to lie, dissimulate and stealth tax in every conceivable way. The target is the old. The sooner they are dead the better so far as the state and its tax collecors are concerned. That way the state will save on pension costs, save on care costs, save on hospital costs and get earlier access to 40% of the taxable assets of the deceased.

    It would not surprise me if the DNR (do not resuscitate) rules were also accompanied by more subtle practices in NHS hospitals – of course the unsubtle practices have been exposed for all to see in the Francis report. For example I was extremely suspicious when, last year, a local hospital offered an incomplete surgical procedure for my wife which was at variance both from the diagnosis of her GP and from the diagnosis of a trusted surgeon we contacted. I concluded that the safest course of treatment for my wife was to pay for the complete procedure undertaken by the trusted surgeon rather than risk an incomplete procedure by an unknown surgeon. The arrangement proposed by the NHS hospital for fixing a date also appeared calculated to avoid the operation appearing on any official waiting list. It was a case of “we will get in touch when a vacancy occurs” type of approach.

    • stred
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

      And they think most oldies are too dim to realise it. Possibly right. Youngies are too.

    • Wilko
      Posted February 12, 2013 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

      Some doctors infer that old persons are worth less than the young.

      In circumstances where old & young lives are at risk in an emergency, and the doctor present can save only one, the situation forces choice. Doctors tend to opine that they would choose saving the young person, in that there is more life to save.

  22. Chris
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Could you explain why the system on your Diary has changed and we have to enter our details every time we post a comment, whereas in the past the website remembered us? I have lost a lot of posts after clicking submit, and getting the error message because I have forgotten to fill in the ID details (which I had already submitted earlier in the day). Surely the least the site could do is remember the post so that you can go back to your post and then enter your ID details, as happens on other websites?

    Reply: I agree, and am seeking advice and help from the webmaster who recently changed the system.

    • Bob
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

      John,
      You should use the same software as “Left Foot Forward”.

      • Jerry
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

        Bob, (and John, to remind you) there is nothing wrong with the software as such, just a Cookie setting, probably not set-up when the software was installed on the new server. For example the Cookies that are used for site analytics have a “die” setting on my machine of 02 February 2014 20:08:52, on the other hand the Cookies that remember the Required fields have a die setting of 12 February 2013 12:19:08 (which is now older than this browser tab, and are thus only being kept alive by the fact that I have not closed it)!

  23. Roy Grainger
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    I can’t think of a single reason why people shouldn’t have to sell their house to fund long-term care.

    • Tom William
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

      But if they don’t need long-term care why should they be taxed?

      • Jerry
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

        Tom, if you mean IHT, they are not, they are dead by then!

    • yulwaymaryn
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

      because people won’t pay for it out of central taxation.

      • alan jutson
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

        yulwaymaryn

        “Because people will not pay for it out of central taxation”

        How do you know ?

        How does anyone know?

        Has anyone been asked ?

        At the moment it is not health care free at the point of use is it !

        Its free for some, but at a cost to those who have saved (and already paid into the system in the form of taxes).

        Paid for out of central funds seems the most fair to me.

        Then make all Benefits available on a contribution basis, so that we do not get tourists abusing the system.

    • Graham
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

      If they do sell their property then it should be counterbalanced by those that can’t afford care being forced to donate their bodies to medical science and for spare parts – I can’t think of a single reason why they shouldn’t!!

      After all an incentive is required for everyone.

      • s macdonald
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

        You will find that the medical schools have become a lot more selective in their acceptance of corpses for research – they will reject, for instance, anyone who died of cancer.

        • Jerry, that might be
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

          @s macdonald: I think you might be confusing two different uses, it seems astonishing that they would not want the bodies of cancer victims to go for cancer research… But if they are doing as you suggest then perhaps they are actually just over subscribed.

          • Jerry
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 12:11 am | Permalink

            Not sure what happened there, I most certainly did post the comment above but did I manage to post it without filling out the Name field?!

    • Mark
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

      By the same light shouldn’t they have to sell to pay for e.g. a liver transplant for their young son unfortunately struck with liver cancer before he even attends school?

      Why does the stage of life at which you require medical care make a difference as to whether NHS provides it free at the point of use or not?

      • alan jutson
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

        Mark

        Exactly

      • stred
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

        NICE has invented a valuation method called ‘qualis’- the older you get , the fewer points. They also spend a fortune on PR if you want to argue.

      • Bob
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

        @Mark
        “Why does the stage of life at which you require medical care make a difference”?

        It’s called age discrimination, and it’s illegal in the private sector.

  24. Denis Cooper
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    Neither, because I would change the system so that instead of taxing the estate of the deceased any tax would be levied on the legacy received by each beneficiary.

    • Deborah
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

      That is an interesting idea.

      • stred
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

        Said before. a lot fairer and more sense.

    • Bob
      Posted February 12, 2013 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

      Be careful what you wish for, it would be treated as income in the year it was paid, and you wouldn’t each get the NRB, so you could be hit for 40% on the lot.

  25. dan
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Mr Redwood,
    is there anything, any U-turn, any traitorous policy decision, any EU diktat, that would make you say enough is enough, I cant remain within this Conservative Party?

    Reply: yes there would be. Fortunately the Conservative party as a whole has voted against Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon, voted for a referendum on Lisbon, and vetoed the Fiscal treaty for the UK. I didn’t notice any UKIP MPs helping us. I intend to carry on trying to solve the problem of the UK’s joyless marriage to the EU as a Conservative MP, as I can get more done that way.

    • Bob
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      John,

      Do you believe that Mr Cameron would have made his jam tomorrow referendum speech had it not been for the fact that conservatives are dumping the Tories in favour of the real Conservative Party (a.k.a. UKIP)?

      Reply Yes, it was to do with the pressure from Conservative MPs. As you can tell from his public statements, Mr C does not rate UKIP.

      • Brian Tomkinson
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

        Reply to reply,
        “As you can tell from his public statements, Mr C does not rate UKIP.” That sentiment can be extended to his view of traditional Conservative supporters!

        • Nick
          Posted February 11, 2013 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

          Probably because he’s worried about UKIP taking votes out of Tory candidates in marginal seats. That allows in other parties.

          Now, with the promise for a referenda being just another one of those promises that can be dropped, such as IHT, the Tories have shot themselves in the foot.

          • lifelogic
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

            The Tories have shot themselves in the head and the heart – not merely one foot!

      • Bob
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

        “As you can tell from his public statements, Mr C does not rate UKIP”

        So he wasn’t worried by the loss of members to UKIP?
        That’s not the impression I got from Jacob Rees-Mog on “This Week” last week. He seemed to think that the main objective was to stem the flow of supporters to UKIP.

    • Deborah
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

      The Conservative Party as a whole may have voted for those things. But what has it actually done? It’s all just words, not deeds.

      And what have you actually succeeded in, John? I know you have tried and I’m not encouraging you to join UKIP – I’d just like to know what you really think you have achieved, arguing against the EU from within the Conservative Party.

      Reply Helped keep us out of the Euro which is fundamental, and now encouraged the PM to veto the fiscal treaty, offer a referendum and cut the EU budget.

      • Deborah
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:57 am | Permalink

        There hasn’t been any real likelihood of us joining the Euro for many years. The referendum may or may not happen at some time in far in the future and our budget contributions are still rising.

        The Conservative Party is a large part of the problem. It is not the hero of the story, determinedly battling to keep the EU at bay; it is the Pied Piper of Hamlin, making soothing noises whilst all the time leading us in the wrong direction.

        • Wilko
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

          Acting to keep the UK out of the Euro in the first place was a success.

          • Jerry
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 12:32 am | Permalink

            The Tory leader signing the Single European Act in the mid 1980s wasn’t though, without that treaty there might never have been the Euro, nor even the “EU”….

      • lifelogic
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

        Reply Helped keep us out of the Euro which is fundamental, and now encouraged the PM to veto the fiscal treaty, offer a referendum and cut the EU budget.

        Offer a referendum after he is history and unable to deliver and cut the EU budget for other than the UK.

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply,
      I notice that you only articulated EU issues for keeping you in the Conservative party. Strange that; just how is the problem of this “joyless marriage” going to be achieved? The items you listed haven’t made the slightest difference to the UK being subsumed by the EU, without our consent. For the future we are “promised” a re-run of the referendum con perpetrated by Wilson in 1975. The economy isn’t being tackled as you would wish but you don’t seem to see that as a reason to withdraw your support. I fear that tribal politics trumps everything else.

      Reply: On the contrary the Conservative party is the only way I can see to disengage from big EU government.

      • Brian Tomkinson
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

        Reply to reply,
        Not under the current leadership which is determined to keep us in the EU which is determined to move towards ever closer political union.

        • lifelogic
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

          Indeed the current leader is a proven liar on the EU and now on IHT too. He is history as is UK democracy it seems.

          Reply He did n ot lie – the referendum was not a manifesto promise – he voted for one in the Commons as promised under the last government. The IHT promise was prevented by the Lib dems.

          • livelogic
            Posted February 15, 2013 at 6:48 am | Permalink

            IHT promise was prevented by the Libdem until 2019?

      • stred
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

        Judging from the pressure you are under from all the Lucys and Emilys in Wokingham, who are hopping mad that you voted against the Notting Hill set, have given the outer london MPs a completelyavoidable problem.

    • Chris Sheldrake
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

      You must be perilously close to that point !!!!!

      PS :

      What is it about Lib Dem Climate Change Secretaries that makes them so untrustworthy ?

      I watched the Mk ll version lie through his teeth to Andrew Neil this lunchtime over their assertion that the coalition agreement included a clear commitment to legislate on House of Lords reform.

      Despite Andrew reading out that part of the agreement and the wording being shown on a large screen behind him which proved categorically that there was no commitment to legislation of any kind, he spent the whole interview trying to maintain that there was.

      Lie detector tests should be compulsory for all politicians.

      • Wilko
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

        Perceptive viewers, who inform others, may be more cost-efficient than mechanical detectors, as your comment seems to demonstrate.

      • uanime5
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

        Chris do you really believe that the Coalition agreement would have mentioned House of Lords reform if there wasn’t any intention to legislate on it. Face it House of Lords reform was a part of the Coalition agreement and the Conservatives stopped it because it wasn’t popular among their members.

        Also lie detectors have been shown to be useless at detecting lies.

        • David Price
          Posted February 14, 2013 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

          Achieving HoL reform was not part of the coalition agreement which says on page 27;

          We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010.

          It is quite clear and says nothing about achieving or delivering reform or legislation, merely establishing a committee to bring forward proposals.

          Claiming anything different would be to persist in stating a falsehood.

      • lifelogic
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

        It would get rid of 90% of them.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

      But the Conservative party as a whole voted for the Treaty of Rome, and for the Single European Act which by the abolition of national vetoes undermined the basis for the public consent to the Treaty of Rome that had been extracted in the 1975 referendum, and for the Maastricht Treaty; and you were in the Commons for the last two of those.

    • JimF
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

      reply to reply
      Please stick to the point. The point is that there was a promise to increase the IHT threshold, and that has been reneged on. The question wasn’t relating to Europe at all, just to the principle as to whether sticking with a party which flagrantly breaches every promise it made before the election is a wee bit dispiriting for you.

      • lifelogic
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

        Indeed.

    • Dan
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

      The new deal will see increased UK payments. Why did you praise that in the Commons?

      Reply: Because the PM did what was asked and delievered a lower budget in real terms for the whole 7 year period. It was Labour’s idioicy in giving away a big chunk of the rebate that puts our contributions up, and there is nothing we can do abnout that in this Coalition government.

      • Chris
        Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

        Reply to reply: D C has not delivered a lower budget. It is a two pronged process and we have only got through one half. The Lisbon Treaty specifically engineered the negotiations on the EU Budget to be two part, so we are now waiting for the European Parliament to have its say. We are a long way from a Budget cut. DC’s talk of victory is very premature and disingenuous, I believe. It is the message he would like to go out to the country, that he has achieved a budget cut, but it is not reality.

        Reply The Parliament can vote it down. I and others spent time in the Commons today trying to get the Labour and Lib dem parties to agree that their MEPs must vote for this budget. I voted against Lisbon for this very reason – amongst others – as did Mr Cameron.

        • dan
          Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

          I wish I had enthusiasm for your argument. As it is, all I have is growing contempt for all those who who deem themselves eurosceptic in the Conservative Party.
          What do we get for this £50million a day for which you heartily cheered, Mr Redwood?
          The EU to me isnt worth a single penny.

          • Bob
            Posted February 12, 2013 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

            I would prefer to pay some pennies to be free of it.

        • lifelogic
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

          “I voted against Lisbon for this very reason – amongst others – as did Mr Cameron.”

          Yes but he later prevented the people voting on Lisbon with a blatant lie & fraud, having promised it in cast iron.

    • zorro
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

      I think that you must judge John by his actions. They show that his main motivation with regards to the EU issue is to ensure that his actions have the maximum impact in trying to get a better deal or try and manoeuvre matters to a place where we can make a decision to leave the EU. He has decided that the best way to do this is to remain what he feels comfortable being i.e. a Tory MP. Why should he have to change?

      zorro

      Reply Thank you. Apparently I would have been better off in my critics’ mind as the losing UKIP candidate in Wokingham last time – can someone remind me what that would have done to advance the cause of a referendum, a veto on all new treaties, and a lower EU budget? It is particularly odd that now that UKIP have copied some of the policy positions I have been campaigning for over many years I should apparently join them.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 9:24 am | Permalink

        JR, what do you mean by “a veto on all new treaties”?

        Reply: They haev legislated for a referendum on any new transfer opf Treaty powers, and the Conservative backbench party is in no mood to vote for ajy new Treaty transferring powers.

        • lifelogic
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

          Closing the door (the only slightly with loopholes) well after the horse has bolted.

  26. Winston Smith
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Are these new roles applying to the whole of the UK or just England?

    There is no point voting LibLabCon if you want change. The political elite are just fronting One Government.

    • Bob
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

      @Winston Smith

      Peter Hitchens on Cameron’s Plans for the Tory Party:
      “Why is David Cameron so keen to trample on his own party and its most loyal supporters? It is a gripping mystery, but as usual the political experts of the BBC and the grand papers have not noticed it, because they are interested in gossip rather than in the future of the country. “

      http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/02/this-gay-affair-is-just-an-excuse-for-a-tory-divorce-.html

    • P O Pensioner
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

      In Scotland all care home costs are met by the Scots government (via English Taxpayers)

  27. Alan Wheatley
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    Cost of Care

    The thing that continues to depress me about all discussions relating to elderly care is that it is entirely reactive (finding the money) with no thought of strategy (consideration of cost drivers along side funding resources).

    I believe that, given the choice, the whole population would choose for themselves at the end of their lives to be here today and gone tomorrow – or, in less stark terms, healthy and independent for as long as possible and to be incapacitated and dependent on others for the minimum time. But the debate, from government downwards, starts from the basis that living longer means more care will be needed and the only questions are how much will it cost and where does the money come from.

    The debate also presumes that if the money problem is solved there will be an infinite supply of carers who will be ready, willing and able to do the necessary for those in need. My experience is that this is extremely unlikely to be the case, and the current analysis into what has been going on at NHS hospitals, which should be the gold standard, would seem to reinforce that view.

    A strategic view should look at what can be done to keep people healthy for as long as possible. It should consider how to apportion funds for medical research, including questioning the long-term rational of spending public money into the illnesses that kill us, such as cancer. Taken to the logical extreme, we could end up with half the population alive but incapacitated by debilitating illness being cared for by the other half of the population. This will not be an easy nor a comfortable debate, but to ignore the reality is simply to stoke up an ever bigger problem.

    Trading off the cost of care against inheritance tax is a minor irrelevance.

  28. Normandee
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    Gay Marriage is a European commitment, HS2 is a European commitment, Inheritance is a tax that Europe would thoroughly approve of, mass immigration is an unavoidable European side effect, and goodness knows how many other things going on we don’t know about. I’m waiting for someone in Europe to realise that all the contaminated horse meat actually came from the UK.
    Please explain to me how we can possibly be worse off with Labour in power, YOUR party, it is becoming increasingly obvious, is incapable and doesn’t want to stop this, even if you win a majority in 2015 you are still stuck with this quisling Cameron.
    So I ask you once again do I vote for a anti european candidate ? or a completely untrustworthy pro european ?

  29. Bryan
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    Allegedly Mt Cameron’s mother said that ‘.. one cannot tell David anything..’

    Well it seems that when it comes to listening to the cries for help from his own countrymen he remains deaf.

    He thinks we have a moral duty to help the poor etc of the World whilst ignoring the elderly in this country. His moral duty is to the citizens of the UK first!!!

    The 2bn needed to implement Dilnut in full could be found by not increasing overseas aid, much of which goes into the pockets of the despots who run those countries.

    Still, as long has he faffs about on the World stage looking and sounding important, I assume he is at the peak of his ambitions. Meanwhile the rest of us will just have to do the best we can with what is left to us from our meagre incomes and savings.

  30. The PrangWizard
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    We know who has the power in the coalition and the veto on any worthwhile reform. ‘I agree with Nick’ Cameron clearly likes the Hard Left LibDems. How do Cameron, Clegg and Osborne hide their own money, is it locked up in trusts which the rest of us are debarred from creating?

    I will not be affected by State theft which is inheritage tax, a tax on capital. It should be abolished altogether. Any money lost and more could be raised with sensible other tax arrangements, and of course cuts in government spending. Trouble is, it’s all going the other way, I’ve heard far too often recently unchallenged sneering references to ‘unearned income’ maybe the next thing is 97% tax on dividends and savings income.

    If people were allowed to build their own wealth, they could pay for their own ‘care’.

    If I had money I’d keep it ‘under the bed’, so to speak, I’ll buy small valuables, gold, silver etc. I’d make sure no-one like Cameron or Clegg got my money.

    Reply MPs have no special access to tax advantages through Trusts. Trusts do not usually enable onshore individuals to avoid UK tax, and all Conservative MPs are I believe rightly onshore full taxpaying people.

  31. They work for us?
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    A confidence trick called National Insurance has of course been perpetrated on the public.
    It makes a case for hypothecated taxes. A parallel is the household that must pay its mortgage or rent first and decide how to allocate the rest, National Insurance should be just that.

    Suggestions for your 2015 manifesto.

    Hypothecate National Insurance and increase it if necessary to provide the NHS care and social care that the public needs not expects. Set the cost of social care at the level of the old age pension per week and pay the rest to satisfy the duty implied by National Insurance. Don’t penalise the thrifty in favour of the feckless.

    Stop easily avoidable extra burdens arising on the country’s social welfare budget by reducing net immigration and treating all EU citizens as aliens/ economic migrants when you leave the EU. Stop acquiring their dependents.
    Limit child benefit for all to the first two children.
    Raise inheritance tax threshold to £1 million.
    Either abolish stamp duty or make it a contant % without artificial step increases.
    I could go on but since the Conservatives are no longer conservative I will probably be supporting UKIP as the only way I can protest.

    ResidentialSocila care If you won’t/ can’t abolosh stamp duty

    Income that has already been taxed many of whom still beleive it is waht it

    • Nick
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

      The NI ‘fund’ is in fact a debt of 5,300 bn. That’s the driving force behind the cuts and taxes. Just keeping the Ponzi going.

  32. They work for us?
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    Sorry for typos in previous

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    A confidence trick called National Insurance has of course been perpetrated on the public.
    It makes a case for hypothecated taxes. A parallel is the household that must pay its mortgage or rent first and decide how to allocate the rest, National Insurance should be just that.

    Suggestions for your 2015 manifesto.

    Hypothecate National Insurance and increase it if necessary to provide the NHS care and social care that the public needs not expects. Set the cost of social care at the level of the old age pension per week and pay the rest to satisfy the duty implied by National Insurance. Don’t penalise the thrifty in favour of the feckless.

    Stop easily avoidable extra burdens arising on the country’s social welfare budget by reducing net immigration and treating all EU citizens as aliens/ economic migrants when you leave the EU. Stop acquiring their dependents.
    Limit child benefit for all to the first two children.
    Raise inheritance tax threshold to £1 million.
    Either abolish stamp duty or make it a contant % without artificial step increases.
    I could go on but since the Conservatives are no longer conservative I will probably be supporting UKIP as the only way I can protest.

  33. David Whitley
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    This is a day when I wonder if it is worth living in the UK at all. I always believed that, despite the weather, we accepted life in the UK because it was generally a reasonable place to live and, if things went wrong, you had a chance that you would be fairly dealt with. Now that we have the complete collapse of confidence in almost all our institutions (apart from the monarchy) I believe that we must think beyond any residual loyalty to this country and consider alternatives.
    We cannot halt the flows of people around the world (do not believe any politician who tells you that immigration can be controlled) and we have to think beyond the current state of affairs to what the future will be like.
    In that regard I think that we must be prepared to move away to jurisdictions that offer a better alternative and dedicate our lives to ensuring that the rapacious UK state does not steal the rest of our money.

  34. Charlie the Chump
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    2010 no doubt

  35. Leslie Singleton
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    One runs out of words to describe what the nothing-short-of-contemptible Conservatives are willing to do these days. The Labour Party just has to sit back and watch the destruction of a once great Party. It’s not just what they do but the way they try to sell it that makes one look for a bucket to stick one’s head in to. I couldn’t bear to watch the ever grinning Mr Hunt going on about people “at the most vulnerable time in their life”. People in articulo mortis have other things on their mind. The decision (which I am not at all convinced is correct even in the Conservatives’ own interest) has been made to protect heirs, simple as that. I believe that to be wrong and yet another manifestation of the Welfare State gone mad. If someone has assets he should pay for himself–what on earth has the State got to do with it?

  36. alastair harris
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    none of them. About time this “middle class” tax was scrapped altogether. Does Gordon Brown declare his earning from teaching George Osborne his tax tricks?

  37. Max Dunbar
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    Freezing the IHT threshold at £325,000 is similar to maintaining low interest rates. It dispossesses by inflation. When the Conservative government behave in this way they are either desperate or no longer conservative, or both.
    The Party appears to be determined to abolish itself sooner than later. I predict that the Conservative Party will end up as a rump and that new parties will emerge. This is a pity because it plays into the hands of the socialists in the short term, until a dominant party of the Right appears. With a charismatic leader who has the common touch UKIP seem to be filling the vacuum left by Cameron and his dubious allies. I would like to see Cameron and Farage slug it out in debate.

    • dan
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

      Cameron wouldnt have the courage to debate Farage

      • Bob
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

        Farage has already issued an invitation to Cameron to a televised debate, but Cameron bottled it.

    • Wilko
      Posted February 12, 2013 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

      If UKIP qualified for equal presence in staged party leader presentational debates, such as those that preceded the last election, and Nigel Farage spoke vs the others, he might attract more switchers than his opponents.

  38. JimF
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Why should we believe Conservative manifesto promises when they are tempered by both time and the possibility of there being a coalition?
    Does this policy also apply to Scotland and Wales?
    In an inflationary environment, £75 K will pay for far less then it does today and £325K will mean less than it does today, so again the electorate are being tricked by non-uprating with inflation, excpet twice here. On the one hand your care costs are capped at a paltry £75K and on the other your IHT bill on your £2 million semi in Wokingham (because we have to support the property market) will be enormous.

    UKIP policies – abolish IHT, don’t discriminate in the Union by different policies for Care outside England.

    • David Price
      Posted February 12, 2013 at 9:53 am | Permalink

      UKIP (2010) manifesto actually says “Abolish Inheritance Tax at the earliest opportunity (once economic conditions allow)”

      … “earliest opportunity” and “once economic conditions allow” coming from a politician make this a meaningless promise.

  39. Mark
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    I note that the cost of raising the IHT threshold to £500,000 is extremely modest: in 2010 (latest data from here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/inheritance/table12-3.pdf ) just £127m was raised on IHT for estates smaller than this according to HMRC, while only a further £636m is at stake from raising the threshold to £1m.

    The rules on financing health care in old age act as a further tax. We used to have large geriatric wards and mental institutions where those who suffered Alzheimer’s disease tended to spend their last months and even years without charge: not edifying, no doubt, but paid for from lifetime taxes. Today, such care is effectively charged for to all except the most impecunious. The new measures will do little to change that.

    The effect of IHT is to force liquidation of assets to pay the tax. Its predecessor was used to help break up the great landowner estates (and in the process destroy much heritage as well). In the present incarnation, those who own property in London and the South East become forced sellers to the few who can pay inflated prices: mostly rich foreigners, who now account for over half of London property purchases. This is social engineering on a different scale. The Inheritors are not British.

    Lok’s ears said to Lok “?”

    • Bob
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

      @Mark
      ” This is social engineering on a different scale. The Inheritors are not British. “

      That’s right. They’re purchasing our real estate with money earned from who knows what or where, and have probably never paid any tax on it.

      Our young people have no chance to compete with them with the tax burden and high cost of living they have to bear.

      The bottom line is that the non dom owners will cash up and move their money offshore long before any IHT is due.

    • stred
      Posted February 12, 2013 at 9:32 am | Permalink

      These figures are surprising. It appears that the lowering of limits to around £235 in real terms over 8 years will only raise a fraction of a billion. This figure is only the average house value in many parts of the SE. Many unmarried couples are marrying in old age and the 5% or so of homosexuals have are taking CPs to avoid this trap. Only family members and couples unable to marry will be fleeced in any numbers. It makes you wonder whether the trust boys actually look at the figures when they announce policies like this and hope that nobody notices that it is a stealth tax.

      The inflation trick also applies to Capital Gains in an even more pernicious way. In effect it is now a stealth weath tax. It also prevents people selling assets before they die and increases the number of estates to pay IHT.

      The Treasury makes Mr Madeoff look trustworthy.

  40. Normandee
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Deleting my comments and particularly ones that ask questions you cannot or will not answer doesn’t make the question go away. You know it’s out there and if you are to be the thinking caring politician you espouse to be it must be answered. Or, you are not the thinking caring politician, but just another seat warming politician.
    Even deleting this will only remind you of it’s existence, and I will keep on reminding you and you can keep on deleting them, but then we will both know exactly what you are.

    • Mark
      Posted February 12, 2013 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

      Don’t be too ready to accuse JR of deleting comments. I’ve detected there are some problems with the site’s software since it moved servers that seem to make some comments disappear, depending on what parts of the site you visit after leaving a comment that hasn’t been moderated and published.

    • Bob
      Posted February 12, 2013 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

      @Normandee
      “Deleting my comments and particularly ones that ask questions you cannot or will not answer doesn’t make the question go away. “

      Top tip: Delete any references to Ted Heath in your comment.

  41. A.Sedgwick
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    Osborne is credited with Brown abandoning plans for a snap election in 2007 with his proposed policy on £1m free IHT. The Conservative poll rating increased significantly – reduced taxes mean more votes – but he and Cameron chose to be stitched up by the Libdems.

    I don’t know what UKIP’s IHT policy is, but my guess is that Farage won’t miss this precedent and will gain another million votes.

    • Bob
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

      @A.Sedgwick
      “I don’t know what UKIP’s IHT policy is”

      From the 2010 manifesto:
      “Abolish Inheritance Tax at the earliest opportunity(once economic conditions allow) as this is a small tax with major implications for all but the relatively wealthy”

  42. Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    2010!

  43. Graham Swift
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Yet another broken promise. Cameron is a LibDem Europhile and a congenital liar. he has ensured that the Conservative party will be out of office for a generation after 2015. Any manifesto will be risible and treated with total contempt.

  44. Barbara
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    I’m not to sure about either. Mr R, inheritance tax is wrong, its personal money therefore it should be spent how that person feels. However, again we see elderly care has to happen, now we approach it many differ.
    We can afford elderly care in this country, quite well. It angers me when I hear on the news we cannot afford to pay for it. Yet, Mr Cameron as pledged 11 billion in foreign aid, we pay 55 million for health tourists per year, and pay for immigrants housing once here. If this money, were put to elderly care it would in effect pay for all care, for all.
    Since when as this nation become a international benefactor, while our own have to drain their personal accounts to pay for care. It’s a disgrace. Charity begins at home, as the old saying goes. We owe these nations nothing. We don’t have to contribute such a large sum, others don’t who are better off than us, Germany for example.
    To tell us we have a moral duty to pay out foreign aid, is repugnant to our own citizens. I would remind all MPs and PMs its their moral duty to provide security, and well being for the poor of the nation as a ‘moral duty.’ If you keep spending on others to the detriment of your own, and may be borrowing to do it, you’re asking for trouble. I don’t agree with this care programme at all, it gives nothing, as board and lodging expenses will be in it’s self unaffordable for many let alone the £75.000 costs. Again, those who have paid their dues are expected to fund those who have done nothing, but they’ll be there sitting with those of us who do the paying. Its not a fair policy, at all, and all governments and MPs need to rethink where they spend and what they do. Reflect, or be dammed.

  45. con
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    most of the policies of this rotten government have libdem written all over them.

    cameron is also coming across as mr bendy. he caved in to the libdems in the ‘coalition agreement’. the libdems got most of the policies they wanted apart from tuition fees.

    the eu ‘in / out’ hoax referendum is purely a response to ukip. i believe cameron orchestrated the ‘interventions’ from obama and merkel. he is a fully paid up member of the eu suckers’ club along with most of the uk elites and establishment.

    there won’t be a referendun, but even if there was it would be massaged to get a yes vote.

    i wondered why gay marriage sprung up out of nowhere and now i know. there will be an eu law in november which effectively makes our vote in parliament and the accompanying ‘bill’ a fatuous waste of time. so the eu is pushing cameron on this one and he doesn’t care who he upsets so long as he obeys his masters in brussels.

    the conservative party is a dead duck under cameron. he is untrustworthy, weak and doesn’t seem to have any convictions at all..

  46. David Langley
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Of the two obviously the 2010, but I hate giving any money to the government that is not vital to our defence and economic growth.
    Commentators talk about the NHS being free to all who need it. What is National Insurance contributions for then? Its free to all and especially those who have not contributed a penny. It must be really difficult for politicians on the stump right now, because they have lost the plot completely the present government is backing all the wrong horses.
    We throw away to other EU countries vast sums of money that would dramatically improve so many of our peoples lives and futures. Preserving local accident and emergency units, strengthening our borders, building infrastructure houses and new communications. Rebuilding the railways with new rolling stock built here in England. The list of domestic projects is endless, the creation of a new and forward looking Britain would be re launched with this cash, add the vanity aid projects, strip the commons and Lords to a body capable of managing vital core policies, and leave the rest of it to us and our money. We can spend it quite wisely thank you.

  47. David Langley
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    By the way off topic, great news that Cyprus is going bust having bought vast amounts of Greek debt, they now get the EU to launder it with 17 billions of our EU cash. No systemic problems Barroso, dont make me laugh.

  48. Normandee
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    Pathetic

  49. Duyfken
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    After Dilnot, I had assumed there would be some relief for those such as I facing heavy nursing/care-home fees (for my wife). Now I see there will be no cap for four long years, until 2017, and then if I subsequently peg out as a sole survivor, my dependents will still face IHT liabilities. So I get stuffed both ways! Thanks for your help Mr Osborne but I wish you would just disappear under a stone.

  50. Man of Kent
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    Really off topic but heard this morning of the legal opinion that in the event of Scottish independence then Scotland would have to apply to join the EU.

    I am rapidly coming round to the view that if I were in Scotland I would be voting for independence .

    Unfortunately rather than looking at withdrawal from the EU as an absolute winner the odds are on Mr Salmond whingeing away and becoming an EU mini client statelet adopting the Euro.

    Were he to keep a Scottish pound ,cut income tax to a max 33%,corporation tax to 10%,CGT to 15%,eliminate IHT,Vat to 15% he would have an influx of English Euro sceptics,businesses and more growth than anywhere else in the British Isles.

    • Wilko
      Posted February 12, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

      One wonders why Scots seek independence, yet are attracted to strait-jacketed EU rules which would restrict their freedom.

  51. Jerry
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    John, assuming that it is announced as has been speculated, the 2013 version.

    • Jerry
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

      Sorry, just to make that clear, the 2015 version, as announced today (after all we are all meant to be in this together…).

  52. John Hill & Co.
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    It is hugely disappointing that the promised increase in the Inheritance Tax threshold to £1m seems to have been abandoned. This pernicious tax destroys the country’s capital stock to use for current government consumption. An inheritance is often the seedcorn of small businesses, putting capital in the hands of people who would never want the risk of taking out a bank loan. And inheritance which is not used by the recipient is recycled through the banking system to productive businesses. Allowing families to keep more of their inheritance should be at the core of Conservative policy.

  53. Chris
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Firstly, the most important point for me regarding inheritance tax is that Cameron has broken another promise.

    Secondly the message from David Cameron seems to be very “un Conservative”tax, and we are having to endure more and more tax rises. The green taxes are particularly iniquitous as I believe they are based on flawed science. The Council of Europe has just pledged to spend 20% of the next 7 year budget on green policy:
    http://ens-newswire.com/2013/02/08/climate-gets-20-percent-of-seven-year-european-budget/
    “Rather than being parked in a corner of the EU budget, climate action will now be integrated into all main spending areas – cohesion, innovation, infrastructure, agriculture,” Hedegaard said. “The steer from Europe’s political leaders is unequivocal: they want to remain in front in the transition to a low carbon economy,” declared Hedegaard. “And they are fully committed to align our common spending with this political priority. This is good news from Europe!” (I dread to think what bad news is).
    (Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard of Denmark).

    Thirdly, I think UKIP have this right: I hope you will let me post this quote as it is important that the Conservative leadership learns why UKIP appeals to ordinary voters: a simple appeal that gets to the heart of the problem – people work hard and save for themselves and their family, and then they are constantly knocked down with tax after tax, some of them apparently unjustifiable.

    http://ukip.org/content/latest-news/2942-inheritance-tax-uturn-punishes-families-again
    “Time and time again when their backs are against the wall, Cameron and Osborne make a promise that they then never deliver. This just reinforces our view that the modern Conservative Party is no different to the tax-and-spend socialist parties. This act of economic vandalism, a strike against security and hope, must be seen as part of this government’s failure to work towards growth.

    “People work hard to provide security for their families, they cannot but see this as an attack on that hard work. It is absolutely the wrong message to be sending out. Work hard, and we will hit you again and again and again. UKIP have a long standing policy to abolish inheritance tax – we are the only party that believes in this.”

    • JimF
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

      The reply will be that there are no UKIP MPs to support such measures, so you should vote Conservative, so there will be no UKIP MPs….. time to break this circle and this circuitous argument?

      • Jerry
        Posted February 13, 2013 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

        JimF, the argument is that voting UKIP only splits the Tory vote [1], meaning at best a very reduced majority (for either Tory or UKIP MP and thus hardly a ‘mandate’) and at worst the seat going to the party that previously came second whilst both the Tories and UKIP are reduced to “also rans” (perhaps even loosing deposits).

        Whilst UKIP as a protest group have won the argument but as a domestic political party UKIP has singly failed in 20 years of trying [2], heck even the Green Party and true Independents have got elected in that time, the majority of the Tory and UKIP parties are not poles apart and it is only the personal lime-light seeking of a very few senior people in UKIP that is actually stopping the next logical step towards getting more anti EU MPs in to the UK parliament.

        Far from what UKIP seem to want, the collapse of the ‘three party tradition’ in the UK, if that was to happen then it would also cause many more pro-EU parties to be elected too, such as we have seen in Brighton with the first Green Party MP (even under FPTP).

        [1] I will eat a straw hat if they win in Eastleigh – famous last words…

        [2] I suspect that very few anti EU Labour voters, and are their any anti EU LibDem voters, would vote UKIP, surely they would be more likely to move to further to the left than to a party whose under pinning ideology is capitalist through and through.

    • Jerry
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

      Chris, what promise was that, the one he could not get a (working) majority for, best call an election then, better luck in 2020… Certainly if you are thinking of voting UKIP in 2015!

  54. Muddyman
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    It is almost impossible to believe that this Government has any semblance of actual Conservatives in it, they seem hell bent upon destroying any form of belief in elected representatives. I would not be in the least surprised to hear of physical attacks taking place.

  55. Michael Cawood
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    I presume that David Cameron has given up all hope of winning the next general election – and this is from a card-carrying Conservative i.e. me.

  56. Posted February 11, 2013 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Dear John , why do you not get out of that dreadful Party you belong to ? Is the pension that good ? Inheritance tax is theft on money that has already been taxed . my legacy to my family is being depleted at this moment by the lowest interest rate for 300 years .
    I continue to be amazed that anyone votes for the three EU puppet Parties .

  57. Bert Young
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    No question about it – the 2010 manifesto promise . The Conservatives must now stick to their guns ; the Coalition is dragging them down and , week after week , something else crops up to make their case worse .

  58. uanime5
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    Given how few people have assets work over £325,000 I doubt it will effect much of the UK. Other than the richest 1% the only people who may be effected are those who live in London where house prices keep rising because large number of people are buying London property as an investment, something the Government isn’t doing anything to stop.

    In any case there’s nothing wrong with IHT as it prevents families from keeping too much wealth within the family, rather than having to work for their money.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

      unanime–What a surprise that you hold such views. Instead of “from keeping too much wealth within the family” (horrors: how dare anyone try to keep wealth within their own family!!) try “from keeping too much of their own money”. If a few more of your ever so downtrodden poor were willing to work hard with long hours, take entrepreneurial risks, use their brains and, Yes, do what they can in this day and age to protect their family they might not need to steal from others and at such a sensitive time. You are completely priceless.

      • uanime5
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

        Leslie what you’re proposing is similar to the feudal system where the wealthy families didn’t earn money but just lived off money they inherited. IHT prevents such things from happening by preventing families from inheriting wealth that they haven’t worked for.

        Also your delusions that the poor can magically get jobs as entrepreneurs with no capital or special skills is ridiculous. Blame the poor all you want but it won’t create jobs or make them more able to work.

    • Bob
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

      @uanime5
      “rather than having to work for their money.”

      Do you think that welfare claimants should work for their unearned state benefits?

      • uanime5
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

        Welfare isn’t a salary or an inheritance therefore it doesn’t have to be worked for.

        Also the Court of Appeal has ruled that it’s illegal to make people work for their welfare.

      • Jerry
        Posted February 13, 2013 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

        @Bob: [whilst protesting about IHT “Bob” asked] “Do you think that welfare claimants should work for their unearned state benefits?

        Bob, if ‘filthy rich’ would use their money to invest in their own or others business start-ups, like the government would like, and then live off income/profits those businesses generate, there might be less ‘feckless’ people unemployed…

    • alan jutson
      Posted February 11, 2013 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

      unanime5

      “In any case there is nothing wrong with IHT as it prevents families from keeping too much wealth within the family, rather than having to work for their money”

      This simple statement really sums up your real political thoughts and aspirations for this Country, that the State should have control of everything, and then perhaps (in your ideal world) just issue pocket money to its citizens.
      Thus absolute State control, with no personal choice.

      May I remind you that this communist type of system has failed everywhere it has been practised, when it eventually runs out of other peoples money to steal and spend on their behalf, because the citizens see no point in working for no additional reward.

      Funny how often those that have little, want the State to provide almost everything.
      Those with a lot, want to State to provide little.

      Commonsense lies somewhere in the middle.

      • Bob
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

        @AJ
        “Those with a lot, want to State to provide little.”

        I believe that to be the correct approach. i.e. a safety net, not a hammock!

      • uanime5
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

        Alan your comments show that you have no idea what I wrote and have instead decided to declare it a communist plot because it fits with your anti-left delusions. My comments were about preventing families being wealthy due to repeatedly inheriting wealth, rather than earning it.

        • alan jutson
          Posted February 13, 2013 at 10:00 am | Permalink

          unamine5

          I read exactly what you had written but clearly you did not read the last line of my post.

          I have absolutely nothing against so called left wing views as long as they are honest and open about them, and relate with real life situations and the actual facts and consequenses.

          I wonder, have you actually read the Inheritance tax laws, or had to handle as an Executor the Estate of someone who has died.
          Or attempted any legal financial tax planning.

          If you have, then I am surprised at your comments.

          If you have not, then your views do not surprise me.

        • Jerry
          Posted February 13, 2013 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

          @uanime5: “Alan your comments show that you have no idea what I wrote

          Sorry “uanime5″ but what you wrote does very much shout from the roof tops what AJ suggests, and I say that as someone who is often sympathetic to what you have to say. I suspect that you intended to something quite different to what you actually said!

    • Mark
      Posted February 12, 2013 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

      Looking at the latest Land Registry data, approximately 18% of sales in England and Wales are running above the £325,000 figure. That’s before you allow for any other assets that might be subject to IHT.

      The separate figures for London show 46% of sales are above that threshold.

      Your idea that this is only something that affects 1% is entirely wrong.

      • Jerry
        Posted February 13, 2013 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

        @Mark: That might be the case but it is not a case against IHT, it is a case against housing bubbles!

  59. sm
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    Nothing a bit of asset-deflation would cure- which is likely in real, if not nominal terms.

    Taxes cant really go down unless the demands on the welfare state are reduced- bank welfare, mass immigration etc . More and more demand is heading its way.

    Given the money creation going on, why bother taxing (low incomes at all) except to control inflation.

    Maybe we are the printing press for Europe?

  60. niav
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

    Allister Heath said it best in his CityAM editorial:

    The government says that it doesn’t want people to be forced to sell their homes to pay for care – but it clearly doesn’t mind that hundreds of thousands more grieving children will have to sell their family homes to pay for inheritance tax. Apparently, it’s OK to lose one’s home to the taxman – but not OK to lose it to care costs.

    Sounds to me like robbery, i.e. usual government business.

  61. Barbican
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    I have tried to disengage from your site as I no longer trust you.
    It seems to be impossible.
    Rather like getting free from the EU.

  62. John Maynard
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    IMHO, the freezing of the IHT threshold is directly down to Willetts and Cable.
    Cable won’t give up with his “mansion tax”, and his chum Willetts won’t give up with his “economic war between the generations” clap-trap.
    Cameron and Osborne, inheritance beneficiaries both, but also of the post-baby-boomers generation, have bought into this “grey-blame game”.

    Ironically, of course, inheritance is all about the middle class trying to protect the next couple of generations, by passing on their comparatively modest lifetime savings (the truly wealthy are invariably able to completely avoid IHT).

    Our “Conservative to the centre of my being” Prime Minister, evidently believes middle-class savings should be confiscated and spent by the all-powerful state, rather than trusting those who aspired, earnt, saved and paid their taxes.
    So, in answer to the question: 2010 version, I did not vote Libdem, nor the Official Raving Willetts party.
    This will really hurt the Conservatives. Sigh.

  63. Alan Wheatley
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    My post from this morning seems to have been lost, so here is another go.

    Cost of Care

    The thing that continues to depress me about all discussions relating to elderly care is that it is entirely reactive (finding the money) with no thought of strategy (consideration of cost drivers along side funding resources).

    I believe that, given the choice, the whole population would choose for themselves at the end of their lives to be here today and gone tomorrow – or, in less stark terms, healthy and independent for as long as possible and to be incapacitated and dependent on others for the minimum time. But the debate, from government downwards, starts from the basis that living longer means more care will be needed and the only questions are how much will it cost and where does the money come from.

    The debate also presumes that if the money problem is solved there will be an infinite supply of carers who will be ready, willing and able to do the necessary for those in need. My experience is that this is extremely unlikely to be the case, and the current analysis into what has been going on at NHS hospitals, which should be the gold standard, would seem to reinforce that view.

    A strategic view should look at what can be done to keep people healthy for as long as possible. It should consider how to apportion funds for medical research, including questioning the long-term rational of spending public money into the illnesses that kill us, such as cancer. Taken to the logical extreme, we could end up with half the population alive but incapacitated by debilitating illness being cared for by the other half of the population. This will not be an easy nor a comfortable debate, but to ignore the reality is simply to stoke up an ever bigger problem.

    Trading off the cost of care against inheritance tax is a minor irrelevance.

  64. Jon
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    What someone builds up during their life has been subject to tax many times over. To them be taxed again on death is an issue for me. It is human nature to want to pass on to the next generation.

    I am against the principle of inheritance tax. Its moved from something the very wealthy paid to the non very wealthy and think it is against the principle of non double taxation and against a fundamental human instinct.

    • uanime5
      Posted February 12, 2013 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

      Is it human nature to want to pass on more than £325,000, tax free, to the next generation? If not then the IHT doesn’t go against human nature.

      • Jon
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

        Thats a 3 bed semi where I come from and if someone has paid that mortgage with interest on top from earnings that they have paid full tax and NI on then who is a stranger to come in and say they have a right a slice of it. Double taxation is not something we generally do.

      • Edward
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

        Uni,
        The answer to you question “is it human nature……” is yes it is.
        And the sooner you wake up to that very groown up fundamental truth of life the better it will be for you.

  65. The PrangWizard
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    Dear Mr Redwood,
    I wasn’t having a go at ordinary MPs in general on the question of Trusts, I’m sorry if I gave you or anyone else that impression.

  66. John Robertson
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    Hello John

    If you have a house that you no longer need then I believe that it is totally reasonable to use this to fund long term care. It is not the job of the taxpayer to protect other people’s inheritance. What I do find totally illogical from many fellow members is that an inheritance tax threshold for a couple of £650,000 (our house in Proctors Road worth about half of that) is an attack on aspiration and savings, which is rubbish as most property gains are from an untaxed boom ove the past 30 years, whilst lowering the 40% tax band to a bit over £41,000 is perfectly acceptable. For the latter in my view George Osborne should be sacked.

    Reply: I agree that 40% tax kicks in at too low a level, and agree Income Tax is a bigger turn off to enterprise than IHT.

  67. Simonro
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    If the tax has to come from somewhere, then I would prefer it to come from those who don’t need it – the dead would seem to fit the bill.

  68. Jon Marcus
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    MPs should be branded with the word ‘Integrity’ so they have a constant reminder about being honest.

    • Bob
      Posted February 12, 2013 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

      With a hot branding iron?

  69. Bryan
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

    I think inheritance tax has to be paid within 6 months.

    This means that when the majority of the inheritance is property, as in the South East and major cities, then the heirs have to borrow the money to pay the tax, and at premium rates, whilst they wait for a sale to conclude.

    Still, whoever said that life was fair?

  70. Robert George
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 3:33 am | Permalink

    The Inheritance tax is easily avoidable – that is what makes it unfair. But it is very cheap to collect so is attractive to government.

    My answer is do not trust government – any government, but arrange your affairs to avid this tax.

  71. David Price
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 9:09 am | Permalink

    I prefer neither, there should be no IHT at all.

    I have already paid taxes on my assets, why should’t I be able to leave them to my dependents rather than any dependent the state, which hasn’t earned those assets, decides

    • uanime5
      Posted February 12, 2013 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

      As long as you have been benefiting from the state (welfare, education, roads, police, healthcare, etc) you shouldn’t be surprised that you’re expect to pay for it.

      • Edward
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

        Uni,
        You missed out one word which is pay for it “again”

      • David Price
        Posted February 13, 2013 at 8:54 am | Permalink

        What have I benefited from, that I haven’t paid for..

        – Welfare? n/a None received
        – Education? n/a Contributed to taxes and paid for privately as well
        – Roads? n/a I’ve had to pay rates and road fund licence to drive on roads
        – Police? n/a part of the council charges I pay every year though the three times I need their help I didn’t get any
        – Healthcare? paid for via NI and private health insurance

        My parents paid for me when I was young then I paid for me and my family when I worked. I have not benefited from the welfare state, instead I have been a net payer.

        My post tax assets are mine, I should chose where they go not the state.

        • Jerry
          Posted February 13, 2013 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

          @David Price: But when IHT comes knocking you are dead, it is no longer ‘your’ money [1], the correct question to ask is what taxes have your children paid in relation to this money/wealth. It is irrelevant what taxes the dead person has paid in the past [2] – did your children earn this wealth and thus pay income tax on it, or perhaps they paid CGT etc. but had they done so why is it in your estate and now subjected to IHT?!

          [1] nor is it anyone else’s until Probate is granted.

          [2] in the same way as what tax the boss has paid is irrelevant when talking about an employee’s income tax

          • David Price
            Posted February 14, 2013 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

            An illuminating expose of the socialist mindset and intent – don’t do the right thing and make provision for yourself and family, uncaring individuals representing the “state” who do not respect property rights and will take everything as soon as they possibly can.

            In the 13th century there was an English King called Edward. He owed so much money to some Italian bankers that they refused to lend him any more. So Edward confiscated all the assets of all Italians in England. Interesting parallels and I imagine he used similar sophistry.

          • Jerry
            Posted February 14, 2013 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

            @David Price: When all arguments are lost, resort to personal, attack, call them “socialist”…

          • David Price
            Posted February 15, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

            Jerry: In a past post you stated that your were proud to socialist. I wasn’t name calling at all just acknowledging a learning point.

  72. Paul Smith
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    I much prefer the 2015 policy. The Social Care policy is critical, and I imagine would do more to protect inheritances than simply raising the tax threshold (although it would be interesting to see some figures on this). I also like the policy because it seems to be the first change that will specifically impact the baby boom generation, who have got a good deal out of austerity. Of course, it would be better to scrap the winter fuel allowance (not least because you don’t pay more for fuel in winter, it is averaged over the year) but I accept the unfortunate predicament that the party has got itself in in that regard.

  73. Bazman
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    The point is that they don’t do any work and the money is handed down like the aristocracy. An aristocracy that increasingly believes that society should be arranged around them and for their benefit at the cost of all others. Is this right?

    • Edward
      Posted February 13, 2013 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

      Its not aristocracy to want to leave to your children or some dearly loved relative or a dear friend or even a charity, your estate when you die.
      The tax free limit is £325,000 which can just be the value of a modest family home.
      Above which 40% tax is payable in cash.
      Hardly aristocratic levels of super wealth Baz.
      And it belongs to you not the State, you have worked hard and paid tax on the money during your lifetime.

  74. Felix
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps the £1 million paid in child allowance each week to non British Europeans working here should be used to pay for elderly care reforms ? This money is sent home weekly to mothers with children that will probably never come here, work and pay British taxes.
    As for Inheritance Tax… Its simply a tax on the aspirations of ordinary people.
    In a Conservative Britain people should not be punished for working hard and saving hard. Why should assets bought with taxed income be taxed again on transfer ?

  75. Mark
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    Test. Comment still missing in this thread.

  76. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted February 13, 2013 at 1:18 am | Permalink

    I prefer the 2010 policy. But what I am really unhappy about is the whole concept of HM government getting involved in financing the old in care homes, other than intervening to support paupers.

    The parameters for most old people are quite simple: the value of my property is £x, my net outgoings (expenditure minus pension) are £y per annum, and my savings are £z. After allowing for inflation, my savings will be exhausted after n1 years, after which I will either have to release equity from my home or downsize. This additional funding will run out after n2 years. It is important that every elderly person keeps updating these calculations so as to plan ahead.

    HM Government’s scheme will provide a bonanza for administrators, financial advisors and eventually lawyers. I thought that we were trying to get away from that sort of economy.

  77. Fran Tally
    Posted February 13, 2013 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

    First of all let it be known that UK inheritance tax levels are the highest in Europe! What is interesting is that not only the conservative have made a U turn on their promise, but have in affect imposed a decreased of the inheritance tax threshold because it has not even been going up in level with inflation. At the same time they praise hard working middle classes and invite them to save …. save for what … so that the Government can take it all!! We bought a house 10 years ago at £250K. We spent about £30K for loft conversion. It is now worth about £450K. Do realize how easy it is to get above this pathetic threshold level? This is not a tax for the rich! This is another tax for the middle classes which are being squeezed like lemons. The rich one will have their companies, the offshore investments, tax avoidance schemes. It should be mentioned that whilst there is now a possibility to freeze the IHT threshold, the 50% level of taxation has been decreased to 45% (this is for people with earning above £150k). Increases in Personal allowance have been founded with by lowering the level of the 40% tax. From next year a person earning above 41K you already pay 40%. If you have a company car or petrol allowance, that of course is considered a taxable benefit and that has not been frozen … on the contrary: it goes up and up … so whilst your 40% threshold comes down, your benefit are valued more and more. But what hurts more is that I still hold to the old principle of “a promise is a promise”, even more so when this was a promise to the electorate. … if this U turn is confirmed, well for sure the Conservative are not going to get my vote again!

  78. Colin Hart
    Posted February 15, 2013 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    Spent yesterday listening to LibDim councillors banging on about how the government was ‘bribing’ councils to hold down council tax. If these numbskulls are the people who have forced Gids to betray us over IHT, they need to be told to sod off and we’ll govern as a minority and then let the people decide. If the people get it wrong then that’s their problem.

  79. Graham McCracken
    Posted March 4, 2013 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    This government is not fit for purpose. I voted for them in 2010 in strong support of the commitment by Osborne to raise the IHT threshold to £1M. My future vote is now dependent on this policy being, in some form, reinstated.

  80. Jeff Allen
    Posted April 4, 2014 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    This underlines one thing Politicians regardless of party cannot be trusted. IHT is state theft no other way to describe it. What it really means is spend ALL of your money whilst living and if it runs out let the state pay for you. My Mother is paying £ 2.5K per month in a residential home she worked until 81 when she had a stroke. She paid taxes from age 17 until 81 never ever claimed unemployment benefit the only benefit aside from National Health was Child Allowance. Never went of foriegn holidays, only bought what she could pay for and saved money.Others in the home have only a state pension and their costs are paid by the state yet life time earning could have been ideantical.
    Cameron, dont trust him, Nick Clegg, idealist not realist and dangerous, Ed Milliband, part of the problem not the cure.

  81. Jeff Allen
    Posted April 4, 2014 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    More grist to the mill for UKIP votes Im afraid

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College, and has a DPhil from All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.
    Published and promoted by Thomas Puddy for John Redwood, both of 30 Rose Street Wokingham RG40 1XU
  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page