The civil partnership legislation was a welcome addition to our statute books. During the Bill's passage through Parliament the Conservatives argued that there was a real sense that it discriminated against people who lived together, albeit outside any sexual relationship. They cited the case of two sisters who might share a house but be subjected to a massive inheritance tax bill if one of them died. This could force the other to move out of their homes. The gay rights lobby dismissed this as a red herring. Today the Daily Telegraph reports that two sisters in their eighties are suing the government for having discriminated against heterosexuals. Read the full story HERE. I don't think they will win because they will find it difficult to prove wilful discrimination. They seem to be basing their case on their assertion that Parliament 'is full of homosexuals'. While that may be true, that doesn't mean they are all automatically driven by a desire to discriminate against sisters in their eighties.
But they do have right on their side. Of course, the simple solution is to abolish Inheritance Tax altogether (are listening, George?) but if that can't happen the half way house solution is to allow the primary family home to be excluded from Inheritance Tax. There is also an argument for allowing everyone who isn't married to nominate a 'significant other' who could be either a partner or relative, who would be exempt from Inheritance Tax for the primary property. I'm not so sure about that one, because it could be seen as a disincentive to marry or enter into a civil partnership.
10 comments:
You're wasting your time if you think young George will take the hint. The way he's going he'll probably double IHT and put it on anything bigger than a dog kennel.
That's if the Conservatives ever regain power, of course....
The point, is not whether parliament discriminated, it is whether the law discriminates.
In this case, the dozy Homo Sapiens in Parliament, failed once again, to pass a Bill into Law that was compatible with the ECHR Articles enshrined into Law by the Human Rights Act 1998.
Drink Bolls, Piss Green
Capital is highly mobile and it moves to where it earns most and pays least tax. Of the 250,000 Brits who leave each year, few are poor. We used to lose young people in a brain drain. Now we drain away wealth. Once people make enough money they go. If we want to stem the tide, we will have to abolish capital taxes. Australians pay no IHT. Funny how most expat Brits head there. It's not just the climate.
Those 2 sisters sound quite homophobic. There's not a gay bias like they say: gay brothers have to pay inheritance tax like those 2 ladies.
There's a registered couples (both heterosexual marriages or civil partnership) versus other people difference in how the tax is applied.
"During the Bill's passage through Parliament the Conservatives argued that there was a real sense that it discriminated against people who lived together, albeit outside any sexual relationship."
I think the tories had a free vote on this and so "some" conservatives, not all coservatives argued that position. Infact 34 Tory MPs voted against Ed Leigh's amendment to include siblings
Iain, anon 6:27 - if I may repeat m'self: don't give up on killing IHT, Osborne or no Osborne. Byers was surely flying his kite to flush out / pre-empt Brown scrapping IHT as a crowd-pleasing 'rabbit-out-of-the-hat' initiative upon becoming PM. (Indeed, Byers is still at it, as recently as yesterday, which tells you this has got legs.)
Look carefully at Brown's response in the FT on 29 Aug - not at all 'scathing' as it was spun. All he attacked was: "promising unfunded tax cuts". The words are chosen carefully, and the operative word is "unfunded". In other words, if/when he plans to scrap IHT, he will announce at the same time how it is to be funded (e.g. stopping the VAT fraud haemorrhage!). £3bn is nothing in the overall scheme of things.
Likewise Darling's pronouncement, spun as 'slapping down Byers'. No - what he said was: "inheritance tax brings in about £3bn a year and if you get rid of it it follows that some other tax has got to go up".
So - the Brownite line is clearly designed to leave the door ajar. This, plus Byers returning to the fray, is why we can be pretty sure IHT is a live issue with Brown. If Blair really has lost the plot (and I'm still not sure on this one) we may find out quite soon.
I see a good future career in being a serial "significant other".
It's probably buried in EU laws that it's a crime to even reduce let alone abolish any tax.
Why exempt the primary property rather than any other asset? Lots of people prefer to hold assets in other forms. Why discriminate against yachtsmen or vintage car enthusiasts or investors in industry?
The answer to IHT is to tax income in the hands of the recipient in the normal way rather than the estate.
Yak40 - a classic example of EU-nuttery. Some of you people lose all ability to identify that most of our problems are entirely home grown.
Why should people pay tax on money they have already been taxed on, to fund services which they will no longer benefit from, as they are, in fact, dead?
Aboolish this vile tax as a matter of principle!
anonymong 11:24
sarcasm is one of simplest forms of humour, but even this seems to be beyond the grasp of humourless, europhilic dullards like you.
Post a Comment