|
|
Post by Ripley on Jan 3, 2024 0:19:42 GMT
Government needs tax revenue to pay for schools and healthcare. Given a choice between taxing the dead (with assets of over £1m) and taxing the living (people perhaps struggling to pay their mortgage at the same time as raising their kids) many may say better choice is to tax the dead. I am happy to pay my share of taxes, but my estate was built with income the state has already taxed. Why should they tax it twice? We are taxed in numerous other ways as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 3, 2024 0:23:39 GMT
The local authority has no jurisdiction over inheritance tax. In your situation where you are married and I assume will leave most of your assets to your kids, you will only pay inheritance tax if your estate is over £1m. If that is the case, why should the government not take some tax revenues to pay for schools rather than take it from struggling young families raising kids and paying mortgages? I am well aware of the reach of local authorities regarding property. I never suggested the local authority had anything to do with inheritance tax. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 3, 2024 0:24:57 GMT
Government needs tax revenue to pay for schools and healthcare. Given a choice between taxing the dead (with assets of over £1m) and taxing the living (people perhaps struggling to pay their mortgage at the same time as raising their kids) many may say better choice is to tax the dead. I am happy to pay my share of taxes, but my estate was built with income the state has already taxed. Why should they tax it twice? We are taxed in numerous other ways as well. Several other ways, and the more you have the more you're taxed. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jan 3, 2024 0:28:52 GMT
We could get into social mobility and we could talk about the morality of a person suddenly receiving an inheritance of in excess of £500k ( if there are two children) where another person in otherwise identical circumstances gets nothing . But actually it’s a pragmatic thing. The government needs tax revenue to pay for schools and healthcare. Better in my view to get some of it from dead millionaires than from struggling young people raising a family and paying mortgages.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 3, 2024 1:06:01 GMT
We could get into social mobility and we could talk about the morality of a person suddenly receiving an inheritance of in excess of £500k ( if there are two children) where another person in otherwise identical circumstances gets nothing . But actually it’s a pragmatic thing. The government needs tax revenue to pay for schools and healthcare. Better in my view to get some of it from dead millionaires than from struggling young people raising a family and paying mortgages. Yes indeed, schools and healthcare are very expensive. Perhaps the government should consider the chronic lack of availability of schools and healthcare when every year they allow tens of thousands of illegals to stay in this country. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jan 3, 2024 1:44:01 GMT
See, i’m guessing you’ve done this yourself or someone you know well has … because thanks to this society’s covering up death these days hardly anyone outside the death industry knows this until they find themselves on the receiving end As a way to suspend the grief of close bereavement it works well. But by god you wait until that emotional payload you’ve dodged to sort this shit out hits. Which it will. Took almost a decade in my case. My ancestors thought tax men and revenue men were best strung on a rope. After dealing with the Probate Office i can see why. As things turned out the house proceeds after mum died were a lot less than the IHT threshold and her personal assets were next to nothing because provisions in dad’s will ensured the bulk of his cash was shared out between her and us after he went and his ibm pension was one of the old style which mum still got a healthy monthly income after he died, it wasn't a fund … But the HMRC (****s) (bastards isn’t string enough so fill the asterisks in yourself) were fucking salivating when they first assessed the house because their valuation which we took to court to challenge said it WAS They didn’t realise one of my wife's MANY posts while a civil servant included a spell in the effing valuation office so we knew how to play them at their game and win. Scum. Utter Scum the lot of them. First up against the wall. I have never had to deal with IHT so I come from a different position to those who have had to deal with it. I have not and do not make any argument of the difficulties or the costs in that area. My wife and myself have worked hard to accumulate our economic position and our economic safe position in our old age. My first point is that IHT that goes to the state goes for the benefit of all. IHT has a history of being used by governments to help fund battles abroad. "Succession duty was introduced by William Gladstone as a measure to capture more unearned wealth at the point of succession that would not otherwise be chargeable to legacy duty." ---- "unearned wealth" showing this point was recognised in the past. I think it is obvious that there is a need for IHT, without it some family lines would become extremely rich gathering wealth generation after generation as in the old days, gradually taking an ever bigger slice of the economic cake while at the same time seeing the country building more poor houses, and 50% of kids dying before the age of ten largely due to poor diets and bad living conditions. And the absence of an NHS of course. The massive hole in your argument is of course the aristocrat who owned the freehold on half of London whose death a few years back caused absolutely ZERO pounds in inheritance tax to be received by the treasury On studying the detail of direct inheritance of property i suspect neither of my daughters will be stiffed by it on my and my wife’s demise but if that bastard aristo can avoid his estate of billions being slammed for it, why can’t i. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jan 3, 2024 7:49:57 GMT
Precisely. An inheritance tax threshold of £325,000 does not give anyone the incentive to work hard to pay a mortgage off. Why bother if you're just going to get hammered by HMRC. Better off renting and pissing your bank balance up the wall. So why does only 4% of estates generate Inheritance Tax? |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jan 3, 2024 7:55:00 GMT
Precisely. An inheritance tax threshold of £325,000 does not give anyone the incentive to work hard to pay a mortgage off. Why bother if you're just going to get hammered by HMRC. Better off renting and pissing your bank balance up the wall. So why does only 4% of estates generate Inheritance Tax? Because someone was forced to do something, almost certainly against their will, about the fact the threshold stayed at £350,000 while house prices quadrupled. It’s a certainty the property is theft mantra party will put it back to a level that ensures 95% of estates - with MPs being exempt of course - pay it. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jan 3, 2024 8:59:32 GMT
We could get into social mobility and we could talk about the morality of a person suddenly receiving an inheritance of in excess of £500k ( if there are two children) where another person in otherwise identical circumstances gets nothing . But actually it’s a pragmatic thing. The government needs tax revenue to pay for schools and healthcare. Better in my view to get some of it from dead millionaires than from struggling young people raising a family and paying mortgages. Yes indeed, schools and healthcare are very expensive. Perhaps the government should consider the chronic lack of availability of schools and healthcare when every year they allow tens of thousands of illegals to stay in this country. Sadly all too typical for this thread. Rackham knows absolutely nothing about the subject but believes passionately that it should be abolished because that's what GB News have told him to think and when his ignorance is exposed he seeks to change the subject to the safe ground of asylum policy. Its one of the reasons why this forum is increasingly becoming unusable. |
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Jan 3, 2024 10:38:47 GMT
As mentioned, we will be taxed on something that we have already been taxed on, secondly, the income from this most unfair tax will simply be absorbed into the funding of a completely dysfunctional "welfare" state, where political activists in the NHS have rendered it unworkable despite the fortune being poured into it, and the idle bastard youth can idle their lives away on benefits and most outrageously we have to fund 6 star hotels for Al Qaeda other ranks that are wading ashore daily.
I propose to give each of my three children a third each of the allowance and the rest to go to charities of my choice, in that way the money can't be squandered by a profligate and incompetent government.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 3, 2024 10:44:13 GMT
The local authority has no jurisdiction over inheritance tax. In your situation where you are married and I assume will leave most of your assets to your kids, you will only pay inheritance tax if your estate is over £1m. If that is the case, why should the government not take some tax revenues to pay for schools rather than take it from struggling young families raising kids and paying mortgages?You could use that argument to take all of it . |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jan 3, 2024 10:47:34 GMT
Government needs tax revenue to pay for schools and healthcare. Given a choice between taxing the dead (with assets of over £1m) and taxing the living (people perhaps struggling to pay their mortgage at the same time as raising their kids) many may say better choice is to tax the dead. Most people who have died have already contributed most of their lives paying in to the system, why hound them in to the ground?
You'd be more than naive to think that the death tax goes to pay for schools healthcare, and people struggling to pay mortgages, nice thought though.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 3, 2024 12:01:10 GMT
The grafters are not punished, they are dead. Pillock. Not as stupid as those who think the dead can be taxed. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 3, 2024 12:02:46 GMT
If you have paid tax on income , acquired some savings and paid the mortgage on your house , why should your estate be taxed ? Because of ‘ rich’ people . One of the reasons is that inheritance is unearned income. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 3, 2024 12:06:59 GMT
As I have already shown, I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS A POLICY, and you are being deliberately (I assume) slow on the uptake. so who advocated this 'idea'? - someone must have for you to believe it was true. It was used by some as a way of excusing the increasing wealth that was taking place for the rich. It was always a lie regardless of who started it. |
|
