Will Darling's politicking make the Tories weaken their IHT pledge?

Publius

Don't tax more, spend less.

Short the UK

The sooner the Tories drop the tax cut the better. We are skint!!! They should focus any tax relief on business. George Osborne is behind the curve, not for the first time.

When are the political class going to apologise for this P&L:

UK Govt 09/10 profit & loss account

Revenue (£ bn):

Income tax - 141
National insurance - 98
VAT - 64
Corporate tax - 35
Excise duties - 44
Business rates - 24
Council tax - 25
Others 67
Total = 498

Spending (£ bn):

Social protection - 189
Health - 119
Education - 88
Economic affairs - 43
Public order and safety - 35
Defence - 38
General public services - 31
Housing/Environment - 29
Debt interest - 28
Other - 72
Total = 672

*Deficit (loss) = 174 bn

That is an utter disgrace......

James W

If Labour were to U-Turn - then surely this will put the Tory IHT position in a better light because many more middle-class taxpayers would benefit.

Labour will no longer be able to argue that only the x number of highest income individuals will save as it will no longer be true. All those that would have been helped by Labour's policy will now rely on the Tory policy.

Dorothy Wilson

I thought the Conservative had already said, that in the light of the changed economic situation, their position on IHT was an aspiration rather than a promise.

Jules

I really hope they don't weaken their position; there's always a potential conter-attack to Labour's tribal warfare.

For instance, on IHT - go West Wing on Labour. Don't refer to it as IHT - but the "death" tax; an immoral, inhumane tax which involves hitting bereaved relatives and profiting from their loved ones' deaths. Perfect for Labour and typical of them - making money off people without having to do work themselves, by just waiting for people to die. I'd even go one further - when the economy is in a better position, scrap it altogether.

50p tax on rich - killing and punishing aspiration which we badly need now to get us out of this mess. Remind people it's not just bankers and lawyers who earn this amount - but doctors, and business owners who provide jobs for the community.

I really wish the Tories would stop being so genteel with Labour. Stop taking the High Road and get tribal with them and go after them with a vengeance, like Blair did in 1994-97.

I know Cameron is desperate to avoid the nasty tag that Teresa May unhelpfully coined - but I think that what the public meant was stop being nasty to each other; but take the gloves off with the other side.

Naomi Muse

It's the boddom line, innit!?

Tax more = larger exodus from these shores

Cut costs = improvement.

Canada cut unnecessary cost first and then cut about one third off its national bottom line.

Cuts were across the board and it worked.

The sooner the better, I say.

However, if I were in opposition of any sort I would just focus on what the government is and isn't doing right and wrong, for their being perpetually under the spotlight and stopped in their tracks and refocused on answering the question posed, whenever they fail to answer a question, could find an admission where the obvious chinks in the ol' armour are.

Anything the opposition says is pie in the sky as there is currently no mandate to implement any of it.

They should keep their powder a little drier until Fffflash gallops of to ask the Queen to dissolve him...pun intended.

Gary Williams

The Conservatives would be fools, in more ways than one, if they did not postpone indefinitely their proposed raising of the threshold. I say this as a Cameron supporter and one whose heirs would benefit from such a rise.
The proposal never had certain social benefit. Whatever political benefit it might have had was marginal and short-lived. In the present economic environment, if anything it would be counter-productive, as it would both reduce tax revenue and discourage private spending.

Postponing the proposal would not alienate its supporters-in-principle, as most of them are not expecting to die soon, and most of them are economically literate. Cameron's failing to postpone it simply gives Labour/Lib Dems a stick with which to beat him, and reinforces in the minds of the sceptical the fear of "the same old Tories" who would look after only themselves.

The environment has changed, the policies and their timing must change. This one is going to have to change, and it would be truly dumb for Cameron to wait to change it until after Labour have done the same. Leaders are supposed to lead.

TomTom

I thought Rooker-Wise meant tax allowances were indexed. Anyway, the tax change Labour introduced is simply using the nil-rate band for the first deceased and that should not be affected.

The amusing thing is that it will not affect Zac Goldsmith or any other Non-Doms whose assets are exempt from IHT although British Citizens who reside abroad and die do not get the benefit of tax-free transfers between spouses nor the £325,000 band on UK assets held at death.

Irene

Osborne has already said it is only an aspiration now, but they should say this more loudly because Labour are still bringing it up at every opportunity.

Pete Hoskin

Dorothy Wilson and Irene: just to be clear, it was Ken Clarke who said (back in March - iirc) that the IHT cut was just an "aspiration". The Tory leadership then immediately said that it would still be a manifesto commitment. But their position now seems to be that it will be introduced "sometime" in the first Parliament of a Tory government - rather than in their first Budget.

I've changed my text above to make that a little clearer.

TomTom

IHT is pernicious under Brown. Only estates <£5000 are exempt from filing with HMRC. One Form is 58 pages long with 36 pages of explanatory notes.

The whole paperwork exercise is a nightmare coupled with the fact that the tax must be paid BEFORE Probate is granted and so bank loans are needed to pay taxes to HMRC without the security of estate assets or the sale of family homes in a recession.

Further, the estate must pay CGT on any gain above Probate value - so it was 40% IHT plus 40% CGT now 18%.

Perhaps Income Taxes could be assessed similarly and people told to take out loans to pay taxes due up front ?

The fact that those with farms and other protected assets do not pay IHT nor the Non-Doms or Trust Fund boys means only the lower middle classes have an interest in being expropriaed by an ever rapacious State

Michael Booth

It's not so much Darling's politicking that worries me, it's his pocketing...

DavidDP

"making money off people without having to do work themselves, by just waiting for people to die. "

Um , isn't this the definition of an inheritance?

Bocephus

It is not the super wealthy who will benefit from the IHT threshold increase, they already have lawyers and accountants ensuring they pay virtually nothing. It is the middle class - especially in the south east - who have worked hard all their lives and earned a reasonable living but cannot afford fancy lawyers to set up all sorts of trust funds. At the moment the system is skewed against virtually every middle class family in the country.

Roadrunner

So now the tories are backpeddling on IHT,after the referendum betrayal how can anyone believe a word they say,I'm glad I will now be voting UKIP.

Verity

By long tradition, IHT means the International Herald Tribune.

oldtimer

As I am at age when I must, and do, contemplate the financial implications (for my family) of the grim reaper I feel able to comment on this with some authority.

In my serious working life I was a top tax payer (in the 60% marginal rate days). Then my pension contributions were not taxed - tax was to be deferred until I drew down my pension. Then along comes Brown with his pensions tax, overturning 70 years of established tax law practice and without proper consultation and despite warnings about its implications - namely the closure of final salary pension schemes. My pension fund is now taxed even before I draw my pension from it - effectively this is double taxation. Note I do pay tax on the pension I draw down; but I expected to. Now we have IHT or the Death Tax as some more accurately describe it. If you are one of the many hundreds of thousands (not 3000 as Labour spins it) that fall into this category then you will end up having paid triple tax. Finkelstein is right in his assessment; people detest this tax. It is set at much too low a threshold.

Cameron/Osborne do indeed have a choice to make. They probably will carry people with them for a delay of a year. But the abandonment of the change would cost them dear.

As for my wife and myself, it is time to dust off our plans to emigrate to a more tax friendly clime.

Blofeld's Cat

and IVF means "I'm Verity's Fan"

so what?