General Election 2015

[Whitey Grandad]

With regard to getting rid of Employees (some other posts above), I think an Employer can pretty much get rid of someone within 24 months for very little reason, as it stands, which seems more than reasonable (not for the Employee mind). If you haven't sussed out that an Employee is either difficult or not up to scratch by then, then I'd say it is one's own fault anyway.

 

It was 12 months for a period, in practice 11 months because of the notice period. In cases of redundancy it must be remembered that it is the job that is deemed redundant and not the employee.

 

In my experience that is just not true - there is a lot of cases that go to the employee because the employer has screwed up the process somehow or was ignorant of the process - but a tribunal does not actively disregard the facts.

 

Many years ago our firm (when it was small) got caught out on not following process and the dismissal was deemed automatically unfair even though the judge said that the employee should have been sacked (this is where the system is truly daft). Since then we have engaged legal advice when going down the disciplinary process and have not come unstuck once when we have been challenged. If you follow the process and your reasons for dismissal are reasonable then it can be straightforward.

 

Yes indeed, the whole process must be followed precisely and if it isn't then the dismissal is 'automatically unfair'. The problem is especially difficult for small employers who don't have the resources to make sure of this.

[Whitey Grandad]

I suppose the difficulty is where you draw the line. You can't have someone going through and deciding whether or not the way the money was attained was through hard work and graft and ethically sound. I would say the vast majority of the people who would benefit from the inheritance change would be those who have gained the money through hard work, as those who made their money through luck etc, will generally have a lot more than £1m to hand down...

 

You're quite right. I think that adding and extra £350,000 (?) to cover the family home is one way of addressing this.

[bridge too far]

The people who gain from any uplift of the IHT threshold ARE NOT the people who attained the money through hard work and graft. It is their children etc. who gain. The tax is only due when the estate owner dies!

[JackFrost]

What assertion? I never made it. I just listed a few obvious examples where Wes had missed the mark. Child's play really, but then it always is with easily contestable claims and fabrications.

 

Still, I'm sure evidence will be "found" by the end of the day and you'll have me bang to rights.

 

You made about as much of an assumption as Wes did

 

Anyway I'm just reading the summary of this Miliband speech http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32279977

 

The significant one for me is their proposing to ban zero hours contracts. I don't think they have any idea how many low-income people they'd screw over by doing that, myself included. Fortunately mine is merely a part-time post-retirement job to keep me busy but I bet that will worry a lot of people on low incomes. Just because a few employees abuse zero hours contracts doesn't mean they are a bad idea.

 

WTF has happened to the Labour Party?

[View From The Top]

The people who gain from any uplift of the IHT threshold ARE NOT the people who attained the money through hard work and graft. It is their children etc. who gain. The tax is only due when the estate owner dies!

 

I'd hazard a guess that most of us know that already.

[Wes Tender]

How do you know they've worked hard to accumulate it? Could be inherited money, or like in Cameron's dad's case, he could have been diverting funds destined for the exchequer to an island that'd be a banana republic if it wasn't for that huge, tax-free banking industry. What about lottery winners? Did they work hard for their money? Your assertion that anyone with cash must be deserving of it is entirely false.

 

If you care to read properly what I wrote, I never claimed that everybody who falls into the remit of the Inheritance Tax (Tax on dying) had accumulated their wealth through hard work. Therefore, I had not missed the mark on the overall thrust of my point, that the majority of those who fall victim to this iniquitous tax have accumulated that wealth through their hard work or intelligent investment. And most of them have already been taxed on it during their lives, meaning that that they are taxed again when they die.

 

Shylock:

Less than 0.5% of households, overwhelmingly in London vast?

 

Laughable for you to suggest that where Inheritance Tax is payable on any surplus to an estate at death of over just £325,000 that you conclude that this means just 0.5% of households, overwhelmingly in London. OK, where one spouse/partner dies before the other, their allowance can be transferred to their surviving partner/spouse, but even then an estate including property and other assets of that amount isn't that much. But what is ludicrous is the tax rate of 40% on the estate above that threshold where as I say, tax has often already been paid by most people on their earnings during their lifetimes.

 

And when we're discussing Inheritance Tax, what has Council Tax got to do with anything? That is supposed to be collected towards financing the cost of the Council services, not some additional wealth tax.

[badgerx16]

WTF has happened to the Labour Party?

 

Lab / Con / LD are all scrambling for the middle ground swing votes - principles and legacy have been thrown out of the window and replaced with bland, sound-bite driven, stodge.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

The people who gain from any uplift of the IHT threshold ARE NOT the people who attained the money through hard work and graft. It is their children etc. who gain. The tax is only due when the estate owner dies!

 

Yes, but I believe the point was about how the inheritance amount was earned - ie. Someone built up a business and worked hard, and then dies knowing that their kids will see less of the inheritance because of what is a stupid tax.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I'd hazard a guess that most of us know that already.

 

[bridge too far]

I'd hazard a guess that most of us know that already.

 

I know it, you know it but some people refer to it as if the estate owner is the one who has to pay the tax. Semantics I know

[Nolan]

Lab / Con / LD are all scrambling for the middle ground swing votes - principles and legacy have been thrown out of the window and replaced with bland, sound-bite driven, stodge.

Labour are certainly not in the middle ground. They are almost full blown socialists at the moment.

[CB Saint]

All this back and forth re IHT is a moot point anyway - you are going to have to use the bulk of the value of your houses to pay for your care home because medical science will have found a way of keeping you alive (but immobile) long into your 120's

[Whitey Grandad]

The people who gain from any uplift of the IHT threshold ARE NOT the people who attained the money through hard work and graft. It is their children etc. who gain. The tax is only due when the estate owner dies!

 

All very true, but those who have worked hard would like their children to benefit after they've gone . (Not always the case. I'll grant you)

[Unbelievable Jeff]

All this back and forth re IHT is a moot point anyway - you are going to have to use the bulk of the value of your houses to pay for your care home because medical science will have found a way of keeping you alive (but immobile) long into your 120's

 

And uplifting post of the day goes to...

[Whitey Grandad]

All this back and forth re IHT is a moot point anyway - you are going to have to use the bulk of the value of your houses to pay for your care home because medical science will have found a way of keeping you alive (but immobile) long into your 120's

 

That's what your children are for. If they want your money then thay'll have to look after you, if it would have gone in IHT then they're not so bothered.

[View From The Top]

Labour are certainly not in the middle ground. They are almost full blown socialists at the moment.

 

Serious LOL at that.

[shurlock]

If you care to read properly what I wrote, I never claimed that everybody who falls into the remit of the Inheritance Tax (Tax on dying) had accumulated their wealth through hard work. Therefore, I had not missed the mark on the overall thrust of my point, that the majority of those who fall victim to this iniquitous tax have accumulated that wealth through their hard work or intelligent investment. And most of them have already been taxed on it during their lives, meaning that that they are taxed again when they die.

 

Shylock:

 

Laughable for you to suggest that where Inheritance Tax is payable on any surplus to an estate at death of over just £325,000 that you conclude that this means just 0.5% of households, overwhelmingly in London. OK, where one spouse/partner dies before the other, their allowance can be transferred to their surviving partner/spouse, but even then an estate including property and other assets of that amount isn't that much. But what is ludicrous is the tax rate of 40% on the estate above that threshold where as I say, tax has often already been paid by most people on their earnings during their lifetimes.

 

And when we're discussing Inheritance Tax, what has Council Tax got to do with anything? That is supposed to be collected towards financing the cost of the Council services, not some additional wealth tax.

 

Was referring to the Mansion Tax, as in your facetious "Mansion Tax brigade" (see my response to Whitey).

Edited 13 April, 2015 by shurlock

[buctootim]

Serious LOL at that.

 

Exactly. You'd be hard pushed from this chart to determine when the high tax socialists were in government and when the low tax bastions of liberty were.

 

[badgerx16]

Labour are certainly not in the middle ground. They are almost full blown socialists at the moment.

 

Not by a very long chalk.

[Wes Tender]

Was referring to the Mansion Tax, as in your facetious "Mansion Tax brigade" (see my response to Whitey).

 

And I was responding to Pap's assertion about who would be p*ssed off by the Inheritance Tax. The "Mansion Tax brigade" is just an epithet, for those to the left of the political divide who believe that chasing your 0.5% of people mostly in London is the panacea to paying for all the public services.

 

So that misunderstading aside, you don't dispute that the Inheritance Tax threshold is far too low and that it now encompasses large swathes of the middle classes? Whereas originally it was designed as the equivalent of yesteryear's Mansion Tax when Death Duties were first introduced in 1894, progressing on from former more minor taxes started in 1796 to hit the very wealthy. And do you support the principle that most people having paid taxes all through their working lives, should then be taxed on their accumulated wealth when they die?

[bridge too far]

The (most recent) facts about IHT

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2794199/raising-inheritance-tax-threshold-pays-rise-s-fair-level-death-tax.html

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2276875/Around-20-000-families-pay-95-000-tax-2019-Osborne-freezes-inheritance-threshold.html

 

and a point of view

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/inheritance-tax-fairest-tories-wrong-5511387

Edited 13 April, 2015 by bridge too far

[aintforever]

I theory it is a harsh thing to do, tax people when they die. But the people it is effecting have hundreds of thousands to play with which is more than enough for anyone so they should quit moaning and cough up.

[View From The Top]

I theory it is a harsh thing to do, tax people when they die. But the people it is effecting have hundreds of thousands to play with which is more than enough for anyone so they should quit moaning and cough up.

 

How do work that out?

[aintforever]

How do work that out?

 

Isn't it anything over 300K that's taxed or something?

[Whitey Grandad]

Isn't it anything over 300K that's taxed or something?

 

£325,000 per person at the moment, which sounds a lot but the moneygrabbing graverobbers at HMRC will do everything in their powers to discount large chunks of it.

[Wes Tender]

Isn't it anything over 300K that's taxed or something?

 

It's currently a £325,000 threshold, where the average overall house price in the South East is £333,000. So when they pop their clogs, your average single houseowner will already have reached that threshold and will then pay 40% on anything else they own or have saved, having already paid taxes on most of their earnings through their working lives. But hey, they can afford it the rich bastards, so let's grab as much as we can from their children or relatives as after all, what have they done to earn it?

[bridge too far]

I'm taxed on earnings (pension in my case). Out of that taxed income I pay VAT on goods and services plus petrol duty, booze duty, fags duty, stamp duty (if and when I move). How is IHT any different?

 

It is currently £325K per person but if one person in a partnership dies, their 'limit' is passed on to their partner effectively making the 'limit' £650K. So the £1m limit isn't as generous as its flagged up to be.

[aintforever]

It's currently a £325,000 threshold, where the average overall house price in the South East is £333,000. So when they pop their clogs, your average single houseowner will already have reached that threshold and will then pay 40% on anything else they own or have saved, having already paid taxes on most of their earnings through their working lives. But hey, they can afford it the rich bastards, so let's grab as much as we can from their children or relatives as after all, what have they done to earn it?

 

300 grand is more than enough for anyone IMO, people shouldn't be so greedy.

[Whitey Grandad]

It's currently a £325,000 threshold, where the average overall house price in the South East is £333,000. So when they pop their clogs, your average single houseowner will already have reached that threshold and will then pay 40% on anything else they own or have saved, having already paid taxes on most of their earnings through their working lives. But hey, they can afford it the rich bastards, so let's grab as much as we can from their children or relatives as after all, what have they done to earn it?

 

And as I indicated above, it takes a big lump of money out of the housing market.

[Whitey Grandad]

300 grand is more than enough for anyone IMO, people shouldn't be so greedy.

 

But somebody has to die in order for this money to be passed on.

[solentstars]

Labour are certainly not in the middle ground. They are almost full blown socialists at the moment.

what rubbish.they are nothing like the labour party of the 70s,if you think they are socialists you must be so right wing that you think cameron is a socialist to.

[pap]

You made about as much of an assumption as Wes did

 

Yeah, yeah, I think you completely got away with being completely in the wrong there by using that smiley

 

Anyway I'm just reading the summary of this Miliband speech http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32279977

 

The significant one for me is their proposing to ban zero hours contracts. I don't think they have any idea how many low-income people they'd screw over by doing that, myself included. Fortunately mine is merely a part-time post-retirement job to keep me busy but I bet that will worry a lot of people on low incomes. Just because a few employees abuse zero hours contracts doesn't mean they are a bad idea.

 

WTF has happened to the Labour Party?

 

Zero hours contracts are fundamentally bad for the public, as it places nearly all the power in the employer's hands, and "employer" means anyone, from the CEO to the frustrated supervisor with a insoluble weight problem that uses his or her job to compensate. I have come across plenty of the latter in my career, especially in the sort of job in which zero hour contracts are now employed. At least back then, employees were guaranteed a certain amount of work. Alright, they might not have been first in line for any overtime that going about, but the vindictive couldn't strip them of their basic cash.

 

Now they can.

 

I say "nearly" because this is a free market. The affected employee could find another job, but let's face it, it'll probably be another zero hours contract.

[pap]

Labour are certainly not in the middle ground. They are almost full blown socialists at the moment.

 

Stick to the XBox One vs PS4 thread, Nolan. You're in the Lounge now, son.

 

Actually, just go and have a go on your XBox. You didn't do very well there either.

 

Full blown socialists. Bwa ha ha ha.

[Nolan]

what rubbish.they are nothing like the labour party of the 70s,if you think they are socialists you must be so right wing that you think cameron is a socialist to.

If an ex socialist labour supporter like Martin Freeman has gone to them, then they have steered themselves far left. Not to mention that, they are once again completely beholden to the unions.

[bridge too far]

If an ex socialist labour supporter like Martin Freeman has gone to them, then they have steered themselves far left. Not to mention that, they are once again completely beholden to the unions.

 

Like the Tories who are completely beholden to the hedge funds, banks, non-doms and tax dodgers you mean?

[Nolan]

Yes to the people who actually pay into the economy and help the country run. Yes.

[bridge too far]

Yes to the people who actually pay into the economy and help the country run. Yes.

 

Whereas the workers (represented by those evil Unions) don't actually pay into the economy and help the country run? Jeez!

[Nolan]

The unions generally hold the country to ransom, and try to bleed it dry, yes.

[Whitey Grandad]

Like the Tories who are completely beholden to the hedge funds, banks, non-doms and tax dodgers you mean?

 

Now I'm confused. I thought that was the situation under the Labour government.

[Whitey Grandad]

The unions generally hold the country to ransom, and try to bleed it dry, yes.

 

They do what they think is best for themselves and their members. They don't always got the right way about it.

[View From The Top]

If an ex socialist labour supporter like Martin Freeman has gone to them, then they have steered themselves far left. Not to mention that, they are once again completely beholden to the unions.

 

LOL. You're having a mare here nipper. Stick to your games console thread.

[Torres]

Zero hours contracts are fundamentally bad for the public

 

Yeah, pesky jobs.

[pap]

Yeah, pesky jobs.

Greased up for the proverbial barrel, aren't ya, love?

[bridge too far]

Sajid Javid not doing any better that George it seems

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/13/sajid-javid-mocked-on-bbc-daily-politics_n_7054024.html?1428930723

[CB Saint]

this should be fun. Nolan is a persistent chap.

[View From The Top]

Yeah, pesky jobs.

 

Zero hours contracts which stipulate that the employee cannot work for anyone else even if they currently have zero hours offered should be outlawed.

 

Zero hours contracts have a place but only an utter fool thinks that they're not being abused by some employers. Even our local tory MP is flagging it up up around here when some of the large distribution firms have effectively got rid of all contracted staff and had them back on zero hours contracts.

[View From The Top]

this should be fun. Nolan is a persistent chap.

 

Seems to be stuck in some late 70s timewarp.

[JackFrost]

Like the Tories who are completely beholden to the hedge funds, banks, non-doms and tax dodgers you mean?

 

You think the Labour Party is any different?

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/labour-open-to-the-charge-of-hypocrisy-after-failing-to-divulge-hedge-fund-managers-donation-10124387.html

 

The unions generally hold the country to ransom, and try to bleed it dry, yes.

 

Considering how long it's been since the Labour Party actually represented the working class in this country I think there's a very small chance of that.

[Nolan]

Okay they are as left as they have been in my lifetime..... Does that suffice?

[CB Saint]

Zero hours contracts which stipulate that the employee cannot work for anyone else even if they currently have zero hours offered should be outlawed.

 

Zero hours contracts have a place but only an utter fool thinks that they're not being abused by some employers. Even our local tory MP is flagging it up up around here when some of the large distribution firms have effectively got rid of all contracted staff and had them back on zero hours contracts.

 

We use 0 hours contracts in recruitment, but then it is in our interest to make sure the contractors are working as many hours as they can because when they work we earn.

 

Totally agree with you re the restrictions - as usual a few firms will feck up a perfectly good means of employment through sharp practice, because when government legislate they tend to use a sledgehammer to crack the nut and feck it up for everyone.