Inheritance Tax

[only1swanny]

Probates like a stealth tax! Die with a will, need probate, die without, well need probate anyway.

Dad was nearly taken for 3k, when he dug into what that included, it was pretty much everything I'd already done up to getting things sorted for probate. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

14 minutes ago, Duck Egg said:

No issue with it and would happily hand over the required sum if I met the threshold.  Oddly, I keep reading how the very very wealthy use various loopholes to dodge it. Duke of Westminster did apparently. 

We're an absolute basket case of a country at the moment unable to provide even basic services in many areas.  There are far, far more areas of importance than inheritance tax to concentrate on right now. No surprise that some of the usual suspects are tugging their forelocks with worry about it though.

We do provide basic services. Another exaggeration.

Back to the point, it's not a matter of the poor or wealthy, but purely on morality. Being taxed twice is wrong. Moreover, if what is left is passed down is of sufficient size, then it may well become taxable again at the passing of that generation. 

If politicians want to change the tax system for the living then do so, and let voters understand what it will mean for them now and as they go through their careers. They can say yes or no at the ballot box.

[mickbrown]

1 hour ago, Winchester White said:

So in likelihood, no fucker in the Bolton massive apart from those posh cunts who moved to the Shires will ever have to worry about it. In fact, 96% of the UK doesn't, so frankly I think we as a country have bigger issues to deal with.

My head agrees with you, but my heart tells me as soon as Charlie boy managed to fuck it off why should any other fucker get stung for it? 
 

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

14 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

It's not a deflection because you asked about the moral argument and I countered with a moral argument.

With a spousal estate, you are looking at over a million quid before this tax even gets a look in.

Why is it moral to remove this tax over say increasing the 40% threshold that has been frozen despite massive inflation?

Two entirely different schemes.

There is a good case for raising thresholds (just today reports that this is being looked at). As I said above, they should make their case and let voters judge on what they see as being best for the country.

Pay your taxes as a working adult and maybe in retirement too. That's entirely reasonable. 

Once you've done that, what's left is yours. You should be able to do with it as you please.

It is a simple moral point, as opposed to a more difficult pitch as to what is a correct level, or threshold etc in general taxes.

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

My head agrees with you, but my heart tells me as soon as Charlie boy managed to fuck it off why should any other fucker get stung for it? 
 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/king-charles-will-not-pay-tax-on-inheritance-from-the-queen

I get your point about him being exempt, though this sort of explains why- in essence the "crown" isn't the monarchy. The royal family effectively are custodians but not owners, so the argument being the assets aren't necessarily theirs to tax.

I suppose there would need to be a way of separating out "crown" assets from personal ones- but good luck with that!

It's a simple fundamental for me: you do your bit whilst alive, follow rules and contribute. Once you're no longer around, and not receiving services then no one should be entitled to take any of your assets.

[mickbrown]

But if we’re talking  moral and philosophical issues, more to the point for the majority of us  folk on here is having to sell  their mam’s house to pay for care when they need it in later life. 
 

Happened with my dad. £700 left by the time his mum had died

I can see ‘them’ abolishing inheritance tax, course ‘they’ fucking would. Why wouldn’t you eh Rishi?

But there’s no fucking way ‘they’ will go near this issue which is more likely to affect the likes of us.  

 

[Jol_BWFC]

21 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Don't see as that is relevant. 

Currently, house values are high and younger folk struggle to get a mortgage. 

Whatever the reasons behind that, it remains a fact.

Is someone who has benefited can help someone who isn't in the same position, then they should be allowed to.

Someone can earn modestly throughout a career, but spend carefully and decide to forego expensive holidays etc to pursue a property in the the sticks for example. Then leave that to family.

At the end of their life, why should they be punished for not spending the money on other (more frivolous) things that someone else might have done?

It's all about choice, and the state shouldn't be swiping 40% off them because of it.

I bought a house at the right time, and now have plenty of equity in it. 

We don't earn massively between us, but by the time we retire we will still have that value and maybe will have a bit more behind us in addition.

Not inconceivable that by the time the value of the estate makes tax payable. 

That situation is likely to increase if property remains of a high value.

Then someone says actually, you can't have all your worth and pass it on.

A poor do.

There is no perfect solution to tax. Everyone will have different solutions and will suffer accordingly. For example, those with high incomes but no family money will be disappointed with income tax bands. Those with family money and little income will be unhappy at being taxed heavily each time money is passed down the generations.

Playing devils advocate, if you earned modestly throughout your careers, you will have probably paid less income tax during that period. You might, however, be “wealthy” when you pass away - through prudent choices. Is it not correct you then pay a higher tax when you are a “wealthy” person, even if it’s after you retire?

The other example is the person who earned well through their job and was taxed heavily until they retired. Through no fault of their own they made unfortunate property purchases - a penthouse flat in a building with cladding that suddenly became illegal and a second home in a town where flooding is now regular due to climate change. They pass away without much to their name, with nothing left for their kids because the tax man took it before they retired. They’d be unhappy too.

[MickyD]

5 minutes ago, Jol_BWFC said:

There is no perfect solution to tax. Everyone will have different solutions and will suffer accordingly. For example, those with high incomes but no family money will be disappointed with income tax bands. Those with family money and little income will be unhappy at being taxed heavily each time money is passed down the generations.

Playing devils advocate, if you earned modestly throughout your careers, you will have probably paid less income tax during that period. You might, however, be “wealthy” when you pass away - through prudent choices. Is it not correct you then pay a higher tax when you are a “wealthy” person, even if it’s after you retire?

The other example is the person who earned well through their job and was taxed heavily until they retired. Through no fault of their own they made unfortunate property purchases - a penthouse flat in a building with cladding that suddenly became illegal and a second home in a town where flooding is now regular due to climate change. They pass away without much to their name, with nothing left for their kids because the tax man took it before they retired. They’d be unhappy too.

The flooding is probably more to do with building properties on land historically used to absorb rain water but hey, let’s give credence to the ‘climate change’ theory.

[DirtySanchez]

8 minutes ago, MickyD said:

The flooding is probably more to do with building properties on land historically used to absorb rain water but hey, let’s give credence to the ‘climate change’ theory.

York city centre has flooded for ages

Pesky Romans 

[MickyD]

Just now, DirtySanchez said:

York city centre has flooded for ages

Pesky Romans 

The point stands. Building properties, bridges, culverts, etc., alters the natural flow of the river. 

[DirtySanchez]

Just now, MickyD said:

The point stands. Building properties, bridges, culverts, etc., alters the natural flow of the river. 

So does changing farming practices, cutting down trees

It's far more complicated 

[Jol_BWFC]

18 minutes ago, MickyD said:

The flooding is probably more to do with building properties on land historically used to absorb rain water but hey, let’s give credence to the ‘climate change’ theory.

Not quite sure what the point of this post is, but hey ho. 

[MickyD]

4 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

So does changing farming practices, cutting down trees

It's far more complicated 

But not necessarily climate change as is being blamed for just about all flooding incidents.

 

Just now, Jol_BWFC said:

Not quite sure what the point of this post is, but hey ho. 

Pointing out that climate change is probably less to do with flooding than the popular press would have us believe.

[DirtySanchez]

2 minutes ago, MickyD said:

But not necessarily climate change as is being blamed for just about all flooding incidents.

 

Pointing out that climate change is probably less to do with flooding than the popular press would have us believe.

Don't read the popular press then 

[Sweep]

Isn't the inheritance tax threshold only about £350K, if so. It'll affect more than just the top 4% of the population. 

By the way, I know nothing about it, so maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick

[Winchester White]

2 minutes ago, Sweep said:

Isn't the inheritance tax threshold only about £350K, if so. It'll affect more than just the top 4% of the population. 

By the way, I know nothing about it, so maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick

350k I think for solo but spouse handing over house is over a million I think on top of that. That's why it doesn't affect nearly as many people as folk think. 

 

[Jol_BWFC]

7 minutes ago, MickyD said:

But not necessarily climate change as is being blamed for just about all flooding incidents.

 

Pointing out that climate change is probably less to do with flooding than the popular press would have us believe.

Fair enough. But this is the inheritance tax thread, rather than the climate change thread 😄

[Roger_Dubuis]

6 minutes ago, Sweep said:

Isn't the inheritance tax threshold only about £350K, if so. It'll affect more than just the top 4% of the population. 

By the way, I know nothing about it, so maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick

I think it is only 4% because many will have sorted out their affairs to avoid paying inheritance tax.Leaving the house to a child raises the tax threshold to 500k for example

[Duck Egg]

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

We do provide basic services. Another exaggeration.

We provide diminishing and failing services across so many areas and places.

Need an NHS dentist, crime investigating, legal representation, reliable public transport, social housing?  We're frequently told "there's no blank cheque", "we can't afford it" etc etc yet some folk want to reduce further the income the government get & benefit a few super wealthy folk? Feck that. Close the loopholes and get it enforced and collected.

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

1 hour ago, Duck Egg said:

We provide diminishing and failing services across so many areas and places.

Need an NHS dentist, crime investigating, legal representation, reliable public transport, social housing?  We're frequently told "there's no blank cheque", "we can't afford it" etc etc yet some folk want to reduce further the income the government get & benefit a few super wealthy folk? Feck that. Close the loopholes and get it enforced and collected.

Just hope you don't need an ambulance either

[bolty58]

A fucking disgrace. You work all your life to pay off a mortgage etc. from earnings which have already been taxed and then they want another bite?

Fuck (it) off.

[Spider]

Morally, it’s fine.

If you are happy to exist within a system that allows you to create vast wealth, then you cannot complain when that same system wants some back at the end.

Capitalism eh?

Can’t have it all ways I’m afraid.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Spider

[freds dad]

Two key reasons for scrapping Inheritance Tax

To save the richest 4% lots of money

To convince the thickest 50% that it will save them money in the hope that they will vote Tory in May.

[mickbrown]

23 minutes ago, freds dad said:

Two key reasons for scrapping Inheritance Tax

To save the richest 4% lots of money

To convince the thickest 50% that it will save them money in the hope that they will vote Tory in May.

In one. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

25 minutes ago, freds dad said:

Two key reasons for scrapping Inheritance Tax

To save the richest 4% lots of money

To convince the thickest 50% that it will save them money in the hope that they will vote Tory in May.

Giving the next generation who may not be as well off a leg up?

Simply doing what is right?