|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 3, 2024 16:45:32 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? Surely th0se struggling young families raising kids and paying mortgages? should ensure their lifestyle was affordable for them before embarking on reproducing mini clones? |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 3, 2024 16:48:01 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. IHT is charged at 40% on estates valued at more than £325000 (with a very few exceptions for a higher limit in very specific circumstances) |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 3, 2024 16:48:04 GMT
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. Nope. It was ‘ your’ decision before you ‘ popped your clogs’. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 3, 2024 16:52:04 GMT
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. Well all unearned income isn’t taxed . Only specific unearned income . So the tax laws are selective . So you can’t seriously say that an income is taxed because it is unearned. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 3, 2024 16:57:20 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. Quite correct - you have to be a mind reader and prepared to wager on health when wanting to make gifts See2s hero Brown introduced the gifts made had to be made more than 7 years prior to death rule in order to avoid being charged IHT on them |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jan 3, 2024 17:02:25 GMT
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. Quite correct - you have to be a mind reader and prepared to wager on health when wanting to make gifts See2s hero Brown introduced the gifts made had to be made more than 7 years prior to death rule in order to avoid being charged IHT on them See2 says the 'talented Gordon Brown' ... I bet Brown has all his savings and assets well protected from his IHT rules, Labour the party that pretends to be for the people. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Jan 3, 2024 17:25:44 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.)Only 12 states plus DC have estate tax, and they all have different tax exemption levels between $1,000.000 to $13,610.000. I think about half a dozen states have inheritance tax instead. One state has both, and the rest of the states have neither. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 3, 2024 17:57:49 GMT
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.)Only 12 states plus DC have estate tax, and they all have different tax exemption levels between $1,000.000 to $13,610.000. I think about half a dozen states have inheritance tax instead. One state has both, and the rest of the states have neither. I used the term death duties as a generic term - it is a tax/duty on death whatever you call it |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 4, 2024 9:33:54 GMT
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. Pillock. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 4, 2024 10:29:08 GMT
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. Nope. It was ‘ your’ decision before you ‘ popped your clogs’. Which is what I posted. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 4, 2024 10:31:33 GMT
I don't think it would work if it was a case of the less you have the more you are taxed. Pillock. It was one reply that was earned by your post. But you obviously missed the point. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 4, 2024 10:36:03 GMT
Only 12 states plus DC have estate tax, and they all have different tax exemption levels between $1,000.000 to $13,610.000. I think about half a dozen states have inheritance tax instead. One state has both, and the rest of the states have neither. I used the term death duties as a generic term - it is a tax/duty on death whatever you call it It is a tax/duty placed against the inheritors. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 4, 2024 12:09:53 GMT
Nope. It was ‘ your’ decision before you ‘ popped your clogs’. Which is what I posted. No you didn’t . The decision had been made while ‘ you’ were alive . After ‘ you ‘ died the decision was overturned . You posted “ What you do with your money is your decision right up to the point where you pop your clogs“. That means you can do what you want with your money until you die . If ‘ you’ make a decision before you die and that decision is overturned or disregarded after your death then your claim is incorrect. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 4, 2024 13:13:31 GMT
I used the term death duties as a generic term - it is a tax/duty on death whatever you call it It is a tax/duty placed against the inheritors. And yet again you continue to display your complete ignorance of IHT despite being corrected multiple times by different posters IHT is not charged to beneficiaries( or placed against the inheritors- whatever that means in your single celled brain) It is charged on the value of the estate following the death of the testator and is paid by the executor from the estate IHT charges have bugger all to do with beneficiaries |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jan 4, 2024 13:39:17 GMT
I used the term death duties as a generic term - it is a tax/duty on death whatever you call it It is a tax/duty placed against the inheritors. As unearned income, but the point I think people are making, is that it has already been taxed from somebody's earnings prior to death, I might be wrong that it might be something else, but if it is, is it a fair point? |
|
