Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Risso]

 

He used a deed of variation to minimise IHT.  That's tax avoidance.  All perfectly legal, but "morally repugnant" these days.

How can that be? IHT is due on the estate not the recipient. Who did he grant the deed of variation to, to avoid this IHT given that it was ralph's estate that would have paid any tax? And IHT would have been paid as the Threshold was £150k in 1994 and EM and DM both inherited £160k in property alone which it seems was split 60/20/20.

Don't see how that works

 

 

That's just pure semantics.  It's the family who inherit the estate, not the dead person.

[Risso]

 

He used a deed of variation to minimise IHT.  That's tax avoidance.  All perfectly legal, but "morally repugnant" these days.

Are the use of private family trusts and the use of off-shore tax havens to avoid paying any IHT also morally repugnant?

 

 

Not in my world, hence the inverted commas.

[bickster]

He used a deed of variation to minimise IHT.  That's tax avoidance.  All perfectly legal, but "morally repugnant" these days.

How can that be? IHT is due on the estate not the recipient. Who did he grant the deed of variation to, to avoid this IHT given that it was ralph's estate that would have paid any tax? And IHT would have been paid as the Threshold was £150k in 1994 and EM and DM both inherited £160k in property alone which it seems was split 60/20/20.

Don't see how that works

 

That's just pure semantics.  It's the family who inherit the estate, not the dead person.

Sound like punishing the child for the sins of the father to me

[Risso]

 

 

 

He used a deed of variation to minimise IHT.  That's tax avoidance.  All perfectly legal, but "morally repugnant" these days.

How can that be? IHT is due on the estate not the recipient. Who did he grant the deed of variation to, to avoid this IHT given that it was ralph's estate that would have paid any tax? And IHT would have been paid as the Threshold was £150k in 1994 and EM and DM both inherited £160k in property alone which it seems was split 60/20/20.

Don't see how that works

 

 

That's just pure semantics.  It's the family who inherit the estate, not the dead person.

 

Sound like punishing the child for the sins of the father to me

 

 

It's not that at all.  What happens in a lot of cases is that people leave stuff in their will, in not the most tax efficient manner.  The beneficiaries can then elect to alter the will.  So yes, the estate pays the IHT, but that obviously leaves less in the pot for the people who stand to inherit everything.  By varying the terms of the will, the benficiaries can avoid IHT.

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 

He used a deed of variation to minimise IHT.  That's tax avoidance.  All perfectly legal, but "morally repugnant" these days.

Are the use of private family trusts and the use of off-shore tax havens to avoid paying any IHT also morally repugnant?

 

 

Not in my world, hence the inverted commas.

 

Great, the more common ground people have the less distraction to prevent them concentrating on the real problems

[mockingbird_franklin]

IHT was originally introduced to impact on the very rich, the landed gentry etc, however, the mega rich now tend to avoid such inconvenience as paying IHT through various introduced wheezes and now the people it effects tend to be the middle classes, or the more affluent working classes, those that have worked to save up some wealth, scrapped by to buy some property, usually nothing ostentatious, but thanks to the wonders of currency devaluation bought on by all this money creation, find themselves increasingly liable to IHT, They tend not to think like the mega rich about money matters so don't tend to exploit the various means of avoidance conveniently allowed. After all, many such means usually require greater wealth to pursue than they posses,

 

IHT doesn't deliver what it was set out to do, so it should either be scrapped, or the loopholes closed and thresholds reassessed so it effects those it was always intended to.

[peterms]

 

 

Looks like he was given at least a quarter of a million one way or another.

Inheritance valued at £160k when sold. What are you thinking of as the other £90k that he was given?

 

 

Actually it was probably indirectly more than that.  He got 20% of a building that he later paid £800,000 for the remaining 80%.  Bit more detail on the various purchases in this Graun piece:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/09/ed-miliband-journalists-in-glass-houses#start-of-comments

 

He got 20% of a property.  His share was priced at £160k in 2004, which would probably have been worth about £50k in 1994 when he received it, given the change in property prices in that area over that period.  That's a tidy sum, but it's pretty far away from £250k.  He didn't buy the remaining 80% of the house - his brother did, and that's the source of the £160k.

 

Since home ownership in the UK runs at around 80% (at a guess), then quite a few people have inherited or will inherit property.  If you inherit 20% of a four-bed terrace in Wigan, it's worth quite a lot less than the same in Primrose Hill, and that gap has widened massively in the last 20 years.  That's a reflection of the mad London property bubble, not Miliband. 

 

His family background was that of the intellectual elite, not the financial elite.  I can see why the Mail try to make out that he comes from a background of vast wealth, but it's plainly not true.  Like so many others, he has made windfall gains from an out-of-control property market, as the value of wherever he lived at the time has soared.

[Risso]

You'd actually be surprised at just how out of control the property market was in Wigan before the crash.  Three bedroom terraces that were available for £30K when I first moved there in the mid 90s going for £130K a few years later.  But that's by the by.

[tonyh29]

peterms, on 25 Sept 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

 

 

His family background was that of the intellectual elite, not the financial elite.  I can see why the Mail try to make out that he comes from a background of vast wealth, but it's plainly not true.  Like so many others, he has made windfall gains from an out-of-control property market, as the value of wherever he lived at the time has soared.

 

 

so based on your posting history  , if the father passes money down one generation that's Ok , however if it's more than one generation they are held in contempt for being rich ??

[peterms]

 

peterms, on 25 Sept 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

 

 

His family background was that of the intellectual elite, not the financial elite.  I can see why the Mail try to make out that he comes from a background of vast wealth, but it's plainly not true.  Like so many others, he has made windfall gains from an out-of-control property market, as the value of wherever he lived at the time has soared.

 

 

so based on your posting history  , if the father passes money down one generation that's Ok , however if it's more than one generation they are held in contempt for being rich ??

 

 

Actually I don't think it's ok that the value of the house grew so rapidly.  I think it's a symptom of so much that is wrong with our economy and how it is arranged, and I suspect Ralph Miliband would have agreed.

 

My point is a simple one.  The Mail have tried to make out that Miliband comes from some vastly wealthy background, and it's not true.  He's certainly become rich, as a consequence of the property market.  You will note that it's the accelerating value of the property he lives in that's done this - he doesn't own a btl empire, he's not a Rachmanite landlord, nor a developer, nor a land speculator. 

 

The idea that this crazy property market and the fact of him happening to have been born in an area which later became fashionable somehow discredits his views and makes him a hypocrite is absurd.

[Risso]

Benefiting from increasing property prices doesn't make him a hypocrite.  Avoiding taxes does though.

[tonyh29]

peterms, on 25 Sept 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

 

tonyh29, on 25 Sept 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

 

peterms, on 25 Sept 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:peterms, on 25 Sept 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

 

 

His family background was that of the intellectual elite, not the financial elite.  I can see why the Mail try to make out that he comes from a background of vast wealth, but it's plainly not true.  Like so many others, he has made windfall gains from an out-of-control property market, as the value of wherever he lived at the time has soared.

 

 

so based on your posting history  , if the father passes money down one generation that's Ok , however if it's more than one generation they are held in contempt for being rich ??

 

 

Actually I don't think it's ok that the value of the house grew so rapidly.  I think it's a symptom of so much that is wrong with our economy and how it is arranged, and I suspect Ralph Miliband would have agreed.

 

My point is a simple one.  The Mail have tried to make out that Miliband comes from some vastly wealthy background, and it's not true.  He's certainly become rich, as a consequence of the property market.  You will note that it's the accelerating value of the property he lives in that's done this - he doesn't own a btl empire, he's not a Rachmanite landlord, nor a developer, nor a land speculator. 

 

The idea that this crazy property market and the fact of him happening to have been born in an area which later became fashionable somehow discredits his views and makes him a hypocrite is absurd.

 

 

 

TBH I thought the idea that he stood up and attacked the Tory front bench about privileged few (and tax avoidance ) was what made him a hypocrite  , rather than where he lived  ... you can argue he isn't privileged , but you'd be hard pressed to find a honest hard working nurse / teacher /whatever profession politicians are patronising this week   , that doesn't think he isn't

 

I'm not suggesting he donates all his salary and wealth to the poor  , God knows they will only spend it on booze and fags   , but as CED said previously , what Ed really means is Eton posh boys  in his arguments ... he is playing to the gallery and nothing else ( though arguably as a politician , that's his job)

 

 

btw , didn't Ed answer in an interview once  that  it was OK to be rich,  .. providing  "you make it the hard way.” .. would inheriting from property qualify ?

[snowychap]

What's up with your quoting (the repeating of the quote header)? It's been happening for a while now. Device related?

[tonyh29]

snowychap, on 25 Sept 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

What's up with your quoting (the repeating of the quote header)? It's been happening for a while now. Device related?

 

 

dunno , I'm on the PC at work so guess it's an IE10 thing

 

works OK from my shiny VillaTalk App

[Awol]

Ralph Miliband

 

A Polish Jewish Marxist who fled to England during WW2, refused to fight and instead focused on bringing down the very system that provided his family with succour - the alternative being certain death in a concentration camp for ticking the top 3 "burn him" boxes on the 3rd Reich's check list.

 

Top bloke.

[snowychap]

 

Ralph Miliband

 

A Polish Jewish Marxist who fled to England during WW2, refused to fight...

Where's that from?

 

Are The Indie wrong when they write:

 

 

As a teenager, Miliband was liable for military service, and for some reason wanted to join the Navy, which he did, with Laski's help. He took part in the D-Day landings, in the liberation of Crete, and was aboard the first Allied ship to sail into Athens in October 1944.

Edited September 25, 2013 by snowychap

[tonyh29]

snowychap, on 25 Sept 2013 - 4:05 PM, said:

 

Awol, on 25 Sept 2013 - 3:39 PM, said:

 

Quote

Ralph Miliband

 

A Polish Jewish Marxist who fled to England during WW2, refused to fight...

Where's that from?

 

Are The Indie wrong when they write:

 

Quote

 

As a teenager, Miliband was liable for military service, and for some reason wanted to join the Navy, which he did, with Laski's help. He took part in the D-Day landings, in the liberation of Crete, and was aboard the first Allied ship to sail into Athens in October 1944.

 

yeah the Indie suggest he spent his time in the Navy slagging off non jews and being disgusted by homosexuals  whilst reading Das Kapital 

 

well something like that

[meregreen]

 

 

Karl Marx ... Right I'm off to the piss you off thread

Don't diss the great man! (That doesn't mean you have to be a Marxist or even agree with his observations).

 

Meh another wealthy socialist

 

So if you are wealthy , are you not allowed to have a social conscience, and work for a fairer distribution of said wealth. To my way of thinking, anyone who personally stands to lose financially by working to  change the society we live in, in order to benefit others, is someone with far a higher moral base than those who simply advocate looking after their own social class.

Edited September 25, 2013 by meregreen

[tonyh29]

meregreen, on 25 Sept 2013 - 5:28 PM, said:

 

tonyh29, on 25 Sept 2013 - 12:04 AM, said:

 

snowychap, on 25 Sept 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

 

tonyh29, on 24 Sept 2013 - 11:47 PM, said:

Karl Marx ... Right I'm off to the piss you off thread

Don't diss the great man! (That doesn't mean you have to be a Marxist or even agree with his observations).

 

Meh another wealthy socialist

 

So if you are wealthy , are you not allowed to have a social conscience, and work for a fairer distribution of said wealth. To my way of thinking, anyone who personally stands to lose financially by changing the society we live in in order to benefit others, is someone with far a higher moral base than those who simply advocate looking after their own social class.

 

 

 

it was a private joke ( all be it in public) with snowy

 

but to answer your question , having seen communism / socialism at work I'd say those people making the changes didn't  / don't appear to have been losing out financially or distributed the wealth

[meregreen]

 

meregreen, on 25 Sept 2013 - 5:28 PM, said:

 

tonyh29, on 25 Sept 2013 - 12:04 AM, said:

 

snowychap, on 25 Sept 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

 

tonyh29, on 24 Sept 2013 - 11:47 PM, said:

Karl Marx ... Right I'm off to the piss you off thread

Don't diss the great man! (That doesn't mean you have to be a Marxist or even agree with his observations).

 

Meh another wealthy socialist

 

So if you are wealthy , are you not allowed to have a social conscience, and work for a fairer distribution of said wealth. To my way of thinking, anyone who personally stands to lose financially by changing the society we live in in order to benefit others, is someone with far a higher moral base than those who simply advocate looking after their own social class.

 

 

 

it was a private joke ( all be it in public) with snowy

 

but to answer your question , having seen communism / socialism at work I'd say those people making the changes didn't  / don't appear to have been losing out financially or distributed the wealth

 

If you consider every despotic corrupt regime in the world as your template, then yes , there are those who work the system , be they of the left or right. However, my point is that for a rich man to advocate tax rises for the wealthy, he is motivated by more than the self interest of his class, that I find admirable, not something to be mocked in this rather cyniclal world in which we live.