He doesnt want us thinking he supports lower taxes.
It also avoids arguments over the abolition of the tax in its entirety or significantly increasing the threshold, which allow our opponents to score cheap political points. This is a presentational issue which I believe needs highlighting at regular intervals from now on. Increasing the threshold and reducing the 7 year rule to 2 years would result in even less revenue being generated. The usual envy from the left against others who have more and an interpretation of the old Stalinist dogma to each their needs etc. Osborne needs to remember that the tax was brought in by Labour, it was part of their policy of redistribution and taxing the privileged. This is a sensible and reasoned proposal, and in no way "laughable".
Prior to this date there were a number of tiered rates. No future growth can ever come from British public spending. The only way we can reinforce the message that we are in a high tax, wasteful spend regime, is for people to see it in black and white every week. The greatest force for evil in human affairs is jealousy. Stamp duty and tax thresholds affect more people so should be more of a priority when affordable. It is easier for people to rise as you put it in a diverse economic environment than a monoculture.
At least then if we had to pay tax on a legacy we might feel that it will do some good for the disadvantaged of our society, while strengthening both its unity and its future economic potential. Or better still, anyone who is an executor doesn't have to deal with the Inland Revenue at all. First, provide a higher exemption or credit level that would confine any tax on estates or heirs to the very rich and super rich rather than the merely rich. People, including John G, please make sure any html you use is done right before pressing "Post". It is high time that this tax was ended and George Osborne should be in the lead of the demand for reform, not yielding ground to Byers, that arch turncoat and autarchic fascist. Following modern trends, these sums are more likely to be spend on foreign homes than in the British economy. Similarly it makes no difference to the tax paid on the estate whether all of it will go to an only child, or it has to be divided among several children plus maybe an impoverished aunt.
Families already fall out frequently about inheritances. If I want to leave money to my children or grandchildren I have earned the right to do so without interference from the state. This will become a greater phenomenon in coming years as try and avoid the tax. Conversely he could have been working like a dog in a job, plus spending almost all of his time outside work and a lot of his own money caring for his parents as they aged and became dependent. Yes if necessary put a couple of pence of income tax to fund abolition of IHT. We need to have policies that appeal to the middle ground voters.
Once the company stops growing or shrinks, the full rate applies. Naturally, the capitalistic forces overwhelm the social forces. Investing £30,000 per member of the working population could raise productivity of British industry to compete with the USA. That won't stand up in an election campaign, it's laughable. The trend that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is a myth, at least in the USA. Do you have any evidence for this? Even if it's true family arguments are not the concern of the state.