|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 3, 2024 12:15:25 GMT
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. It isn't a "massive hole" in my argument, if it is a massive hole it is in the way IHT is collected. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 3, 2024 12:17:32 GMT
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. I don't think it would work if it was a case of the less you have the more you are taxed. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jan 3, 2024 12:19:28 GMT
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. It isn't a "massive hole" in my argument, if it is a massive hole it is in the way IHT is collected. When the likes of billionaire Duke of Westminster died they've already covered the IHT loopholes, they'll make sure the government doesn't see a penny off it, however the little people who just about fall in to the IHT rules they have to pay up, it's a social injustice. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 3, 2024 12:21:37 GMT
I just did an online IHT calculator and it came to a 40% tax rate and almost £700k in tax.. Kerching!..  Well paid |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 3, 2024 12:44:03 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. So what ? So is a gift . |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 3, 2024 12:46:38 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. Your post is an example of how an active mind can be relied upon to put its own biased interpretations on a debate. IHT cannot and is not paid by the deceased. If there was no IHT the inheritor would receive the lot except for debts owed. The NHS has had its annual working increase IIRC cut from some 7% to 3.5% plus an increase in VAT. Figures in the past have shown that the UK spent less than the average spend on health. Blair aimed at bringing the spend up to the average. Conservative mismanagement has ensured that education and training has let down the so called "idle bastard youth". Your comment shows just how far away from reality you are. Many countries are caught up in the problems with migrants, I know Jack Booted morons on the Right of politics would just ignore the Laws their country is tied up with. Decent responsible more moderate individuals will seek a legitimate way around the problem. What you do with your money is your decision right up to the point where you pop your clogs. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 3, 2024 12:54:15 GMT
One of the reasons is that inheritance is unearned income. So what ? So is a gift . As for your question you might need to ask HMRC. But AFAIA unearned income is taxable, I recall Thatcher tightening up on interest earned on Bank accounts being taken into count for taxation. If its a gift of money, that may also be liable for IHT. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 3, 2024 12:58:11 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. Your post is an example of how an active mind can be relied upon to put its own biased interpretations on a debate. IHT cannot and is not paid by the deceased. If there was no IHT the inheritor would receive the lot except for debts owed. The NHS has had its annual working increase IIRC cut from some 7% to 3.5% plus an increase in VAT. Figures in the past have shown that the UK spent less than the average spend on health. Blair aimed at bringing the spend up to the average. Conservative mismanagement has ensured that education and training has let down the so called "idle bastard youth". Your comment shows just how far away from reality you are. Many countries are caught up in the problems with migrants, I know Jack Booted morons on the Right of politics would just ignore the Laws their country is tied up with. Decent responsible more moderate individuals will seek a legitimate way around the problem. What you do with your money is your decision right up to the point where you pop your clogs. Not necessarily. If you had an estate worth say £3milion, gave £2.5 million to your children then died the next day , the whole £3 million ( minus allowances) would be subject to inheritance tax ..afaik. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 3, 2024 12:59:49 GMT
As for your question you might need to ask HMRC. But AFAIA unearned income is taxable, I recall Thatcher tightening up on interest earned on Bank accounts being taken into count for taxation. If it’s a gift of money, that may also be liable for IHT. The point is income should not be taxed just because it is unearned . |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 3, 2024 13:05:20 GMT
Your post is an example of how an active mind can be relied upon to put its own biased interpretations on a debate. IHT cannot and is not paid by the deceased. If there was no IHT the inheritor would receive the lot except for debts owed. The NHS has had its annual working increase IIRC cut from some 7% to 3.5% plus an increase in VAT. Figures in the past have shown that the UK spent less than the average spend on health. Blair aimed at bringing the spend up to the average. Conservative mismanagement has ensured that education and training has let down the so called "idle bastard youth". Your comment shows just how far away from reality you are. Many countries are caught up in the problems with migrants, I know Jack Booted morons on the Right of politics would just ignore the Laws their country is tied up with. Decent responsible more moderate individuals will seek a legitimate way around the problem. What you do with your money is your decision right up to the point where you pop your clogs. Not necessarily. If you had an estate worth say £3milion, gave £2.5 million to your children then died the next day , the whole £3 million ( minus allowances) would be subject to inheritance tax ..afaik. You are correct, and it is the point I made a couple of posts up. Also "is your decision right up to the point where you pop your clogs". As that is when IHT kicks in. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 3, 2024 13:08:45 GMT
As for your question you might need to ask HMRC. But AFAIA unearned income is taxable, I recall Thatcher tightening up on interest earned on Bank accounts being taken into count for taxation. If it’s a gift of money, that may also be liable for IHT. The point is income should not be taxed just because it is unearned . That might be a fair opinion, but the tax laws don't see it that way, and haven't seen it that way for around 100 years or more. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jan 3, 2024 13:09:39 GMT
As for your question you might need to ask HMRC. But AFAIA unearned income is taxable, I recall Thatcher tightening up on interest earned on Bank accounts being taken into count for taxation. If its a gift of money, that may also be liable for IHT. I don’t think you need to do that at all I can gift my children and grandchildren and great grand children any amount i like while i am alive and HMRC has to go shit itself in frustration provided i am still legally alive seven years after the gift is given. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 3, 2024 13:11:48 GMT
As for your question you might need to ask HMRC. But AFAIA unearned income is taxable, I recall Thatcher tightening up on interest earned on Bank accounts being taken into count for taxation. If its a gift of money, that may also be liable for IHT. I don’t think you need to do that at all I can gift my children and grandchildren and great grand children any amount i like while i am alive and HMRC has to go shit itself in frustration provided i am still legally alive seven years after the gift is given. Correct and understood. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Jan 3, 2024 14:44:33 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 don't disagree that taxes are necessary, Dappy. But it isn't an either/or choice between taxing the dead or the living. The living are taxed in numerous ways. To me there is something not quite fair about taxing an estate after the owner is deceased and can no longer dispute the taxes. I would far rather pay all my taxes while I'm alive so that my estate planning can be more accurate. An increase in the tax rate is better than a raid on the estate after I'm gone. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 3, 2024 16:40:46 GMT
Red, with respect, if you going to comment on the merits of keeping inheritance tax as it is or reducing or abandoning it, at least make sure you understand it. If you take a typical married couple owning a house jointly, first death leaving assets to their spouse, second death leaving assets to their two children, the amount of assets free of inheritance tax is £1m So if the total estate is worth 800,000 no IHT is paid and each child inherits £400,000 If the estate is £1200000, £80,000 IHT is paid (7.5% of the estate) and each child inherits £560,000 If the estate is £1500000, £200,000 IHT is paid (13%) and each child inherits £650,000 Even if the estate is £2000000, only £400,000 IHT (20%) is due and each child will get £800,000 Your choice to judge whether that is fair taxation, but at least understand how it works before judging. With respect you are ignoring some of the many basic inequities about this death tax with your standard lefty pretence about ''beneficiaries should be oh so grateful having received £x after ''only'' £x in iht is charged IHT discriminates against 1) The single 2) The unmarried 3) The childless 4) Those whose children may have predeceased them without leaving any grandchildren 5) The infertile 6) Those who may be childless but been unable/unwilling to adopt 7) Those living together with a brother/sister/friend in a jointly owned house which must be sold to pay IHT leaving the surviving person homeless 8) The express wishes of the testator as to where their assets should be distributed 9) Those living in the South East It should be abolished entirely or the free tax level raised to £5 m (or pref £10m) ( Death duties in USA are charged on estates worth more than $13.61 million in 2024.) |
|
