|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 31, 2023 9:11:40 GMT
The Tories are often talking bout cutting IHT - or even abolishing it - but never seem to actually do it. They're always afraid that it will be seen as tax cut for the rich. But of course the fact is that, while the person whose will it is may have been rich, but most of the money that gets taxed at 40% is going to people who are not rich.
It seems to me that the principle of taxation of inheritances should be based on the tax rate of the beneficiary. Obviously this would be a further complication to a tax system that is already highly highly complex, so maybe the best simplification that could be made is to just tax inheritances over a particular level at 20%, which is certainly more fair. It may even not reduce the tax take very much because it will make people less inclined to use various trust funds and the like to avoid IHT.
It's so obvious I just don't understand why our politicians haven't thought of it. The beneficiaries will NOT be the rich - it'll be the large numbers of people who get ten thousand quid or so from a millionaire's will which has been taxed at 40%. So they'd get £8,000 rather than £6,000. I'm sure that would be a vote winner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Dec 31, 2023 9:33:15 GMT
There's something quite immoral about taxing the dead, why hound people into the grave, it makes honest people dishonest, because they have to do dishonest things to avoid the tax. The super wealthy just set up trust funds, or some charity or another to avoid it, personally it should be scrapped in favour of a 'death donation', why should the government financially benefit from people they don't even know.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 31, 2023 9:46:32 GMT
The Tories are often talking bout cutting IHT - or even abolishing it - but never seem to actually do it. They're always afraid that it will be seen as tax cut for the rich. But of course the fact is that, while the person whose will it is may have been rich, but most of the money that gets taxed at 40% is going to people who are not rich. It seems to me that the principle of taxation of inheritances should be based on the tax rate of the beneficiary. Obviously this would be a further complication to a tax system that is already highly highly complex, so maybe the best simplification that could be made is to just tax inheritances over a particular level at 20%, which is certainly more fair. It may even not reduce the tax take very much because it will make people less inclined to use various trust funds and the like to avoid IHT. It's so obvious I just don't understand why our politicians haven't thought of it. The beneficiaries will NOT be the rich - it'll be the large numbers of people who get ten thousand quid or so from a millionaire's will which has been taxed at 40%. So they'd get £8,000 rather than £6,000. I'm sure that would be a vote winner. The first thing that comes to my mind is that money inherited is, for the inheritor, unearned income, which for tax purposes would be added to their regular income. As far as I'm aware, it is the level of income that determines the tax level. If the amount of money inherited is substantial then no matter what the start level of tax might be, it would soon automatically fall into the 40% level. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 31, 2023 9:47:48 GMT
There's something quite immoral about taxing the dead, why hound people into the grave, it makes honest people dishonest, because they have to do dishonest things to avoid the tax. The super wealthy just set up trust funds, or some charity or another to avoid it, personally it should be scrapped in favour of a 'death donation', why should the government financially benefit from people they don't even know. "taxing the dead" seriously?? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Dec 31, 2023 9:53:29 GMT
There's something quite immoral about taxing the dead, why hound people into the grave, it makes honest people dishonest, because they have to do dishonest things to avoid the tax. The super wealthy just set up trust funds, or some charity or another to avoid it, personally it should be scrapped in favour of a 'death donation', why should the government financially benefit from people they don't even know. "taxing the dead" seriously?? Errrr you have to be dead before inheritance tax applies.
Don't let this post be your new Jimmy Savile moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 31, 2023 10:06:41 GMT
"taxing the dead" seriously?? Errrr you have to be dead before inheritance tax applies.
Don't let this post be your new Jimmy Savile moment.
Errrr, Inheritance tax is paid by the inheritor, how simple does it have to get for you to understand? And before you are exposed as having to revert to an irrelevant insinuating slurring comment? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Dec 31, 2023 10:14:13 GMT
Errrr you have to be dead before inheritance tax applies.
Don't let this post be your new Jimmy Savile moment.
Errrr, Inheritance tax is paid by the inheritor, how simple does it have to get for you to understand? And before you are exposed as having to revert to an irrelevant insinuating slurring comment? It's a tax on the 'dead' person you fool.
That person has probably paid in to the tax system for years, then when they die they taxed again, it's not the family who pay the tax it's a tax on the dead person.
In other words the family would not be paying tax, if that person was still alive, you clown.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Dec 31, 2023 10:15:54 GMT
Errrr you have to be dead before inheritance tax applies.
Don't let this post be your new Jimmy Savile moment.
Errrr, Inheritance tax is paid by the inheritor, how simple does it have to get for you to understand? And before you are exposed as having to revert to an irrelevant insinuating slurring comment? Oh the irony cee2nile. Any more jokes for indepence days eve? |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Dec 31, 2023 21:33:02 GMT
The Tories are often talking bout cutting IHT - or even abolishing it - but never seem to actually do it. They're always afraid that it will be seen as tax cut for the rich. But of course the fact is that, while the person whose will it is may have been rich, but most of the money that gets taxed at 40% is going to people who are not rich. It seems to me that the principle of taxation of inheritances should be based on the tax rate of the beneficiary. Obviously this would be a further complication to a tax system that is already highly highly complex, so maybe the best simplification that could be made is to just tax inheritances over a particular level at 20%, which is certainly more fair. It may even not reduce the tax take very much because it will make people less inclined to use various trust funds and the like to avoid IHT. It's so obvious I just don't understand why our politicians haven't thought of it. The beneficiaries will NOT be the rich - it'll be the large numbers of people who get ten thousand quid or so from a millionaire's will which has been taxed at 40%. So they'd get £8,000 rather than £6,000. I'm sure that would be a vote winner. The thing about inheritance tax is it denies you the whole point of parenthood, namely the hope not only to have children to pass the baton too, but the ability to give them a better start than you had My grandfathers were working men of the working class. One lived to see his elder son become an RAF Officer and his younger son weaponise the Avro Vulcan, the descendant of the planes for which he started out making the instruments for. The other saw his son command the bridge of the largest freight ship ever to enter Roath Dock. My father lived to see me graduate from university, something he never got to do himself as his parents did not have the money, and stood next to me at Fylingdale when the radar i helped build, based on the same he made work in the desert heat which was itself based on the one his father made work to spot the Nazi’s, went online. I never realised he still had the bloody clearance. I should have put 2 and 2 together when i found him working at Swanwick on the new NATS hardware. The gate guard there back then demanded to check my id but simply saluted dad …. To come back to the point. Wanting your children to benefit from your acquired wealth after you leave it is the most basic of driving forces. Taxing it to fund wastrels and lazy bastards uninterested in making their own success is the mark of the cad of the first order What totally pisses ME off is the aristo who owns three quarters of the rich bit of London, the bit they invented the 1832 Reform Act for to give all his ground rent payers the vote, popped his fucking clogs and every fucking penny of his estate worth billions passed into his son’s control. If HE gets to do that free of IHT why the fuck cant everyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 31, 2023 22:51:05 GMT
To come back to the point. Wanting your children to benefit from your acquired wealth after you leave it is the most basic of driving forces. Taxing it to fund wastrels and lazy bastards uninterested in making their own success is the mark of the cad of the first order This is basically my argument against IHT - it is a tax on aspiration and if you scrap it then it simply gives second rate politicians more money to squander. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Dec 31, 2023 23:07:20 GMT
Errrr you have to be dead before inheritance tax applies.
Don't let this post be your new Jimmy Savile moment.
Errrr, Inheritance tax is paid by the inheritor, how simple does it have to get for you to understand? And before you are exposed as having to revert to an irrelevant insinuating slurring comment? only because they can’t tax you because you are dead. It is not ‘paid by the beneficiary’ it is paid by whoever HMRC recognise as your will’s executor / trix and deducted from your estate before the scum HMRC will grant probate allowing your beneficiaries to collect the rest. I’m guessing you have not had the pleasure of paying probate fees yet …. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 1, 2024 8:58:02 GMT
The Tories are often talking bout cutting IHT - or even abolishing it - but never seem to actually do it. They're always afraid that it will be seen as tax cut for the rich. But of course the fact is that, while the person whose will it is may have been rich, but most of the money that gets taxed at 40% is going to people who are not rich. It seems to me that the principle of taxation of inheritances should be based on the tax rate of the beneficiary. Obviously this would be a further complication to a tax system that is already highly highly complex, so maybe the best simplification that could be made is to just tax inheritances over a particular level at 20%, which is certainly more fair. It may even not reduce the tax take very much because it will make people less inclined to use various trust funds and the like to avoid IHT. It's so obvious I just don't understand why our politicians haven't thought of it. The beneficiaries will NOT be the rich - it'll be the large numbers of people who get ten thousand quid or so from a millionaire's will which has been taxed at 40%. So they'd get £8,000 rather than £6,000. I'm sure that would be a vote winner. The first thing that comes to my mind is that money inherited is, for the inheritor, unearned income, which for tax purposes would be added to their regular income. As far as I'm aware, it is the level of income that determines the tax level. If the amount of money inherited is substantial then no matter what the start level of tax might be, it would soon automatically fall into the 40% level. The logical way to do it would be to add it to beneficiary's income and tax it as income but that would, as I said, add a lot of complication to processing a dead person's estate - which is complicated enough already. Just halving the tax basically achieves the same thing in most cases without adding more complication. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jan 1, 2024 10:19:43 GMT
To come back to the point. Wanting your children to benefit from your acquired wealth after you leave it is the most basic of driving forces. Taxing it to fund wastrels and lazy bastards uninterested in making their own success is the mark of the cad of the first order This is basically my argument against IHT - it is a tax on aspiration and if you scrap it then it simply gives second rate politicians more money to squander. What is aspirational about inheriting money? 🤷🏻 |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 1, 2024 10:36:35 GMT
Errrr, Inheritance tax is paid by the inheritor, how simple does it have to get for you to understand? And before you are exposed as having to revert to an irrelevant insinuating slurring comment? It's a tax on the 'dead' person you fool.
That person has probably paid in to the tax system for years, then when they die they taxed again, it's not the family who pay the tax it's a tax on the dead person.
In other words the family would not be paying tax, if that person was still alive, you clown.
It is imposable to tax a dead person. Tax is imposed on an individuals income. Nothing extra coming in then no extra tax. The "clown" obviously exists between your ears. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 1, 2024 10:44:58 GMT
The first thing that comes to my mind is that money inherited is, for the inheritor, unearned income, which for tax purposes would be added to their regular income. As far as I'm aware, it is the level of income that determines the tax level. If the amount of money inherited is substantial then no matter what the start level of tax might be, it would soon automatically fall into the 40% level. The logical way to do it would be to add it to beneficiary's income and tax it as income but that would, as I said, add a lot of complication to processing a dead person's estate - which is complicated enough already. Just halving the tax basically achieves the same thing in most cases without adding more complication. Yes I agree. All well paid individuals would already be paying tax at 40%. The average earner would immediately be paying tax at 40% if they inherited a large sum of money. It may be a debatable point to fix inherited income at 40% but as you say it would eliminate any piddling about with basic tax levels. |
|
