大象传媒

Re Labour stealing the Conservatives' thunder yet again - on inheritance tax, for example - dare one contemplate that the entire "snap-Election-Not" affair was simply a Labour scam to flush out the Tories' latest-and-greatest thinking (tailor-made for their Conference), thought up by the wily Mr Brown, so that Labour can hi-jack it in good time for the next real General Election (if we ever have one) - ? If David Cameron does not play chess, then he needs to learn! PDQ!

Alastair Darling's pre budget statement has urinated on the Tories tax fireworks but failed to totally extinguish them. The fact remains that the inheritance tax threshold is still 拢300k for parents leaving their estate to their children. The controversy is not going to go away, but the Tories will have to find new ways to fund any increase in the threshold for everyone, intelligent couples already split their estate. Perhaps the apparently now politically correct dash to tax higher earners paves the way for the top rate of income tax to be increased in order to fund an increase in the general inheritance tax threshold.

Similarly a higher top rate of income tax could be used to cut the council tax burden for those on fixed and lower incomes. Once again the only obstacle is fat cat TV news presenters and alleged left wing political commentators like Polly Toynbee who are loath to pay any extra them ten bob fat cat selves. Only today Andrew Neil was winging about paying 40% tax, even though he theoretically escapes any national insurance above about 30k. If they think the tax is too high let them leave the country and open up their job to someone else. Lower income families don't need a pay rise, they need a cost of living cut.

The writing is on the wall for the Deed of Family Arrangement, and for the Trust.

Just how has the IHT threshold for couples been increased? 2 x 拢300k = 拢600k. That was available yesterday just like today. All that was needed was a suitably worded will or the use of a deed of variation.

Similarly, the excuse of private equity has been used to attack business owners when they come to sell after building up their business assets. All that was needed was an edict that gains made by private equity firms' partners was to be treated as income and not capital. Instead, having seen indexation abolished when GB became Chancellor, its replacement that was supposed to simplify the situation (taper relief) has now gone. Result: inflation will do a wonderful job of generating capital gains.

A tired government run by tired old cynics.

You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
Address to the Rump Parliament (20 April 1653)

Stephanie Flanders is wrong, wrong, wrong! She just said that a widow could claim back inheritance tax paid when her spouse had died previously and then leave the full amount to her children.
That is not true! When the widow dies her new estate will be taxed on anything over 300,000..not 600,000

The Isle of Man has operated a "non-dom" tax regime flat lined at 拢100k max per annum and has succeeded in attracting a massive influx of new "residents" attracted by the simplicity of the regime. There is a paradox but it does seem that a liberal regime will attract significant take up. Any one else got any comments?

The scraping of taper relief on business assets held for more than 2 years destroys the ability for entrepreneurs to build companies and crucially retain staff with the incentive of tax efficient equity offers. It is especially important when cash strapped companies need to retain talent but dont have the financial resources of larger competitors. I speak as someone who has helped build a company over a period of 6 years, taper relief has played a major part in the tax efficiency of our offer. Taper relief was brought in to limit speculation and encourage long term holding of assets. This policy makes a mockery of that intiative and shows the government to be woefully out of step with business creators in the UK. I am sure the government will seek to maximise headlines targeting a few private equity leaders masking the reality of poll driven economic policy which in the end benefits no one.

Perhaps next year the Conservatives should schedule their conference a week before Labour have theirs in order to flush whatever policies they may be keeping from us til the last minute! I wonder now if Gordon Brown's PhD was in game theory instead of history?

Goodnight Jeremy. The Mail were more right than wrong, as they have been consistent on the IHT issue for years. I wish the mass media had some financial literacy, as their headlines imply that the appealing Tory tax ideas will be implemented. They wont, as the Brown iteration is cheap, misleading and incomplete. All they stole was the headlines. Soon enough, it will be seen that the Emperor has no clothes.

The Pakistan item was unbalanced, noisy and irritating. Musharraf siezed power by force and pathetically legitamized it since. The implied suggestion that Pakistan somehow needs him is shameful.

Vince Cable: yes he is top notch.

Pakistan: An excellent and fascinating film and discussions by Sabiha Sumar.

Postal strike report: again conspicuous by it's absence. Why?

I can't see the fuss about Brown stealing Tory clothes for wasn't he saying he was going to adopt a broad approach to politics and seek advice from Tory, Lib/Dem et al? So he has adopted some Tory policies and Lib Dem so the debate has developed into a playground spat of "we said it first".
The flaw was made evident by Stephanie Flanders excellent explanations to both parties' idea of taxing the non-doms as both Labour and Tory Spokesmen were so thick they either did not listen nor understand her points. They could not come up with a figure of how much they earned. It's "flim-flam" and smoke and mirrors.

As a Labour Cllr. I am getting annoyed that Brown cannot admit with candour (and then becomes all evasive) in refusing to admit that it was the poll figures that made his decision. If they had been a 10 to 15% lead I bet the decision would have been different, but I see nothing shameful in him saying a 4% lead was too risky. Would you step out into the path of a lorry? If he said "I would have been daft to go to the country" every voter would have agreed unless you were a Tory and that is why they are so annoyed.

He has a large working majority and another 3 years to run, so let's see what the next few years bring and how he copes. (as well as Cameron). As I keep saying it may be a Tory win on the "buggins turn" Theory which the electorate usually adopts, unless Cameron fails to learn chess. (Leandra) and as to Hand of History above,- what a leap of faith!?)

The 'Two Eds' advising Gordon Brown are a thinly disguised but un-acknowledged rip-off of the Tories 'Two Brains' Willets.

Politics need more original thought ... and less 'me-two'.

luc

ps: I WISH NewsNight would (accurately) explain the whole IHT thing. I agree with your correspondent above who says that when the second partner dies, the limit on property left to the children will be the same old 拢300K (as it would apply also to a single parent like me). Even now, if the family home is in the sole name of the partner who dies first, and the estate has not been "equalised", then the remaining partner is now going to have to find the money for tax on everything above 拢600K, and if s/he lives in a house VALUED at 拢650K (and there are plenty of modest homes in my village at this price) for example, this could still mean selling the house (which may still house dependent children, and possibly grandparents). And when the second partner dies, then the estate will be taxed on everything over 拢300K. NewsNight needs to do a follow up - with the correct facts on all this. (ps: Normally I think Stephanie Flanders is a total star - but I think she needs to clarify all this!) We also need to hear some sense from the Tories on the practical facts/effects of all this.

How i delighted in seeing Stephanie Flanders having to state the blindingly obvious over Labours shambolic spending statement last night.
It was apparent that every word of comdenation left her mouth through extremely gritted teeth.
However,she could not resist firing a critical question to the Conservative representative and all because he promised to match Labours spending on the NHS.
This is not the first time Ms Flowers has shown her political bias.We all remember how she made a fool of herself when trying to belittle everything Mr Cameron said or proposed during his recent interview on the Newsnight programme.
She must be reminded of the need to remain impartial and if she cannot then it should be a case of "shape up or ship out".

The Democracy piece on Pakistan was very good, and very interesting. This is the sort of thing I really enjoy on Newsnight - it reminded me a little of White Horse Village. Shame it wasn't a little longer!

Re. the PSR piece: It seems to me that Gordon Brown is doing himself no favours by denying what seems to the rest of us obvious: that he dismissed plans to go to the country early because polls showed his support is soft. He compounds that error by refusing to concede that good ideas are good ideas, no matter where they come from, having previously gone out of his way to emphasise a new direction - "a government of all the talents".

His image coaches should work on his smug expression too - it's most unappealing.

paxo stuffed.
andy burnham,the labour spokesman,refused to be cowed by the boorish and poorly prepared paxman last night who was reduced to appealing to stephanie flanders for erudition.he and michael crick kept banging on about stealing the tories clothes on inheritance tax whilst andy burnham attempted to explain that the labour proposals were very different and in my view and the FT's,much cleverer and more carefully thought out.many people appear to think labour have copied the tories inheritance tax moves whilst also believing that the allowance hasn't changed
we are so fortunate to have such clever and sincere people running the country.

Like your correspondent, Leandra, (post#18 of 10th October), I too wish that someone with the grit of Jeremy Paxman would clarify this IHT issue. One of the guests, a Conservative politician, I think, mentioned that this 600k/300k was a con last night on Newsnight; but no one followed it up. From his comment I understand that nothing has really changed except the Labour Party has totally fooled the electorate with this statement about the "increase" in the threshold.

I am fed up with Treasury officials and Labour Party politicians being able to weasel their way out of this stealth-tax on house inflation by stating that:
1) IHT only affects a few percent of the population anyway.
2) To radically alter the threshold would cost the country billions.

So what is the truth of the matter ?

Has anything really happened ?

And if hardly anyone is liable to pay IHT, how come to alter the threshold would bankrupt the country ?

The changes proposed to the Capital Gains Tax rules will severely damage mergers and acquisition activity in the mid market.

Medium sized privately held businesses have usually been under the same (often family) ownership for many years and the directors look to sell their shareholdings for a variety of reasons. They wish to retire, have health issues or the business needs capital investment, fresh younger management and new ideas to remain competitive.

The purchasers of these companies are often 鈥榤anagement buy in鈥� entrepreneurs looking to acquire and grow businesses. They are not speculative investors looking to take a quick profit.

From April 2008 small to medium sized business owners will be more reluctant to seek buyers for their companies. The result of this will be that the performance these businesses will at best 鈥榝lat line鈥� or at worst decline.

In addition, value expectations will be inflated to take account of the additional tax burden. This in turn will lead to fewer successful disposals and more company closures.

Entrepreneurial purchasers with the capital and skills these companies need to grow will be less inclined to acquire. These purchasers want to grow businesses which employ more staff who in turn pay more PAYE. They want increase profits which in turn raises more corporation tax. The current system of Capital Gains Tax taper relief has incentivised them to do just this.

It is difficult to argue that reforms were needed in the Private Equity sector but this 鈥榦ne size fits all鈥� change is an exceptionally short sighted policy bound to discourage the transfer of ownership of businesses that are unlikely to grow or perhaps even survive in the medium to long term.

Labour need a lesson in Biology. To make a child requires a man and a woman. Sperm and egg. Has the immigration policies not only failed to prevent mass foreign immigration, but also let in even stranger aliens without replicating human dna ? Or are we all to be born as genetically modified 'superhumans' in test tubes in the future, slaves to communal disaffection and state exploitation. Utopia ? Hell more like. As we all have two parents, who each have an inheritance tax allowance, to make it easier to combine the two would lead to a greater degree of discrimination. A more egalitarian society would distribute inheritance allowances to individual recipients, not estates. Why not abolish it altogether like the majority of European and American countries. Britain is becoming the isolated alien bombarding its citizens with communist propaganda and making increasingly inaccurate unscientific claims to justify punitive taxes that deter industry out of Britain, making Britain the land of state control and not the land of opportunity and prosperity that people seek. I hope that if my karma is sufficiently poor due my organic beast composition, and my metabolic sins, then I will be reborn as a liberating carrott to lure the sinful socialists from their palaces and with a cunning plan my dna will synthesise a potent toxin to remove the tyrants from dictatorship. Rabbits will of course be immune to the toxin, who will then inherit the Earth.

I am happy to tell Sue Smith and others that I was Right, Right, Right in my description of the inheritance tax change. Specifically, I said "it's backdated, so if your husband died years ago and left everything to you, you can now leave 600,000 to your children." I have confirmed this with the Treasury and the IFS. If your husband Didn't leave everything to you - eg passed 300,000 to your children - then the allowance for the second spouse is still 300,000. As some have noted, many couples already do this as a matter of good planning, and they will not be helped by the change. But anyone whose spouse did NOT make use of their allowance when they died will be able to leave twice as much. I hope this reassures those who were worried. Allbest Stephanie.