National News Who next

🙂

The art of gifting assets and making habitual gifts out of regular income that you don't necessarily need or rely on. If you do this for friends and family when you are younger, fitter and likely to last a full 7 years from date of gift, it is an essential element of estate planning.

Of course, not easy if there is a reliance on all personal income or holding onto assets, but for those that can and are willing to give away stuff or downsize to help the next generation, it is a no brainer.

Plan early, plan healthy, keep ahead of the game 😉
True but isn't the ££s per annum capped at £9,000 in total for these type of gifts?
 
True but isn't the ££s per annum capped at £9,000 in total for these type of gifts?

There are various gifts listed in legislation that are exempt provided you do not breach certain limits.

Just have a look on HMRC websites for a run down. It can look a little complicated but it isn’t really, once you absorb it a few times.

To your specific point, I think you are referring to the annual allowance that allows an individual to make up to a £3000 single gift (or smaller multiple gifts) annually. So £6,000 for a couple or £12,000 if last years allowance wasn't used.

But you have to be careful not to mix the above with smaller tax exempt gifts such as the £250 small gift exemption.


But, if “your friends” 🙂 parents have a decent level of income that they just don’t need/use, they can make habitual/regular gifts out of this income (providing it doesn’t equate to giving away value of their existing estate) without any problem.

Extreme example, but if you have oldies earning pension/investment income of say £60k p/a after tax but only needed say £40k to live well in retirement, they could gift the excess away by passing monthly sums to their children.


Anything chunky and outside of these limits effectively starts a 7 year clock. If the donor survives a full 7 years, the gift becomes exempt. Hence the need to plan early, plan healthy, if it is doable.
 
You mean Labour would avoid making such a decision because its not a vote winner.

This all sounds very familiar in the world of politics, which is why nothing really ever changes.
precisely.
Blair was the last Labour leader to appeal to the middle ground and win an election. Can't remember if Gordon Brown actually won an election or took over as leader. The middle ground is now too well off to vote for someone like Corbyn, and Starmer has to avoid alienating those votes which tip the balance in the marginal seats.
 
You mean Labour would avoid making such a decision because its not a vote winner.

This all sounds very familiar in the world of politics, which is why nothing really ever changes.
What you are actually saying is a minority of voters, for whom our electoral system affords a majority government, don't want real change.

If people are not happy with that they need to change the electoral system and unfortunately I can't see that happening in my lifetime.
 
precisely.
Blair was the last Labour leader to appeal to the middle ground and win an election. Can't remember if Gordon Brown actually won an election or took over as leader. The middle ground is now too well off to vote for someone like Corbyn, and Starmer has to avoid alienating those votes which tip the balance in the marginal seats.
Brown took over from Blair, then lost power in the hung parliament of 2010.
 
What you are actually saying is a minority of voters, for whom our electoral system affords a majority government, don't want real change.

If people are not happy with that they need to change the electoral system and unfortunately I can't see that happening in my lifetime.

I guess that depends on who end up in power next.
 
Anyway, while we are on random thoughts.....

Cross-party committees to decide on policy, spending, budgets etc for the following:
  1. Health
  2. Education
  3. Infrastructure (Road/Rail/Ports)

3 things that matter to all of society, transgress any parliament and political party(s) and always get used as political footballs.
 
Anyway, while we are on random thoughts.....

Cross-party committees to decide on policy, spending, budgets etc for the following:
  1. Health
  2. Education
  3. Infrastructure (Road/Rail/Ports)

3 things that matter to all of society, transgress any parliament and political party(s) and always get used as political footballs.

I'm all for that.
 
Anyway, while we are on random thoughts.....

Cross-party committees to decide on policy, spending, budgets etc for the following:
  1. Health
  2. Education
  3. Infrastructure (Road/Rail/Ports)

3 things that matter to all of society, transgress any parliament and political party(s) and always get used as political footballs.
Good idea, but how about PR and then a coalition which makes up more than 50% of voters deciding? Then, good or ill, at least it’s actually the decision of the people…
 
Good idea, but how about PR and then a coalition which makes up more than 50% of voters deciding? Then, good or ill, at least it’s actually the decision of the people…

I think everyone on here is in favour of proper PR rather than FPTP.
The hard parts would be
A: Getting PR on the agenda - no party seems to want it.
B: Getting the "50%+ coalition" to work together.
 
What...so all those ones you posted when the Tories were seemingly popular were a load of old bullshit?

Good to know you admit you talk rubbish[emoji1787]

It changes across the electoral period, always has done, always will do. Ever heard of the mid-term doldrums?
In 2 years' time "cake gate" won`t matter, how people feel in terms of wealth, health and future will, and where that middle ground put their cross.....
 
It changes across the electoral period, always has done, always will do. Ever heard of the mid-term doldrums?
In 2 years' time "cake gate" won`t matter, how people feel in terms of wealth, health and future will, and where that middle ground put their cross.....
When it suits you to argue that - LOL!

Still, you must be pleased to see your ratings have now bounced off the floor......who knows....maybe the "sunlit uplads are just around the corner, or maybe it will just be a dead cat bounce for this busted flush of a government :ROFLMAO:

Capture2407.JPG
 
When it suits you to argue that - LOL!

Still, you must be pleased to see your ratings have now bounced off the floor......who knows....maybe the "sunlit uplads are just around the corner, or maybe it will just be a dead cat bounce for this busted flush of a government :ROFLMAO:

View attachment 9532

Like I said - when it matters, and Labour is as volatile as the Conservatives.

2 years is a long time in politics.
 
I think everyone on here is in favour of proper PR rather than FPTP.
The hard parts would be
A: Getting PR on the agenda - no party seems to want it.
B: Getting the "50%+ coalition" to work together.

On A, no argument.

But on B, I thought the Tory - Lib Dem coalition worked together just fine.

Of course, then they had a number of smart, pragmatic individuals on both sides who recognized the need to compromise and bring forward mutually agreeable legislation.

Couldn't imagine the current Tory shower doing that. And couldn't name more than a half dozen Labour and Lib Dem politicians at the moment combined (and very few that I could impress me in any way).....
 
On A, no argument.

But on B, I thought the Tory - Lib Dem coalition worked together just fine.

Of course, then they had a number of smart, pragmatic individuals on both sides who recognized the need to compromise and bring forward mutually agreeable legislation.

Couldn't imagine the current Tory shower doing that. And couldn't name more than a half dozen Labour and Lib Dem politicians at the moment combined (and very few that I could impress me in any way).....

Credit, where it is due the Tory-Lib coalition, was probably the most representative government for many, many years with a true "centre ground" stamp.
Intellect and pragmatism don`t seem to count for much anymore though!
 
Back
Top Bottom