Silly question about a solicitor writing a bad will
Discussion
Jon1967x said:
Jim1556 said:
I know we're all different, and I'm glad we are...
I think the main thing I see here is people with 'money' don't begrudge paying it out whether in IHT, property or whatever.
People who work (like me) who aren't fortunate enough to earn 'money' spit feathers at the thought of giving the government any more of my estate (or my relatives) than it already has taken while 'we' were alive...
I don't know many people who do six figure payments, and I congratulate you (Henry) on building a successful business, but try this example -
If you earned £20k a year, your relative passes (unfortunately), they leave everything to you which happens to be £400k including a £375k property.
£325k is safe, so out of £25k (let's say cash for simplicity), you'd have to give the government £30k or sell the house! I think you'd feel rather sick!
As I said, it's wrong and morally disgusting in my opinion!
Stop foreign aid, cap benefits, cap child benefit to 2 kids (don't get me started), get sensible people to agree contracts (for the best value, not their mates with back handers), stop NHS tourism, above all, stop wasting money! Then the Government wouldn't need all this excessive tax!
You earn 20k and after IHT have been left 350k and you're unhappy? I call that greed. There is no obligation for the deceased to have left you anything and it's this attitude why people contest wills.I think the main thing I see here is people with 'money' don't begrudge paying it out whether in IHT, property or whatever.
People who work (like me) who aren't fortunate enough to earn 'money' spit feathers at the thought of giving the government any more of my estate (or my relatives) than it already has taken while 'we' were alive...
I don't know many people who do six figure payments, and I congratulate you (Henry) on building a successful business, but try this example -
If you earned £20k a year, your relative passes (unfortunately), they leave everything to you which happens to be £400k including a £375k property.
£325k is safe, so out of £25k (let's say cash for simplicity), you'd have to give the government £30k or sell the house! I think you'd feel rather sick!
As I said, it's wrong and morally disgusting in my opinion!
Stop foreign aid, cap benefits, cap child benefit to 2 kids (don't get me started), get sensible people to agree contracts (for the best value, not their mates with back handers), stop NHS tourism, above all, stop wasting money! Then the Government wouldn't need all this excessive tax!
Edited by Jim1556 on Thursday 21st August 00:46
The idea that someone's family home might have some meaning for them doesn't even figure on your radar. The only thing one can do is liquidate the asset. Explain to me why I should be forced by the government to do so. To pay off HMRC (plus the interest on the bank loan that I had no choice but to take out) meant doing just that.
The problem is not with IHT per se but that the thresholds have simply not kept pace with property price inflation. IHT is a fancy name for what used to be called Death Duties. Back in the day DD caught only the top tier of wealthy people. Successive governments tinker around with the IHT threshold and bands while ignoring what happens in the real world. By suppressing the rate of increase it effectively becomes a stealth tax on an increasing proportion of the population. Far more people now come within its icy grip than in the past.
IHT is actually a charge on the estate, not the son(s) and/or daughter(s) (who nevertheless are the ones who have to find the cash) which is why I had to sell the house. Successive governments taxed my father pretty heavily during his lifetime (far less so during retirement as his income dropped over those 25 years and inflation further eroded what he did receive). The net effect (after my mother died) was that a subsequent one decided to do a hatchet job on him for having had the temerity to die.
Well the problem is that the government has to raise money somehow. Of course it should reduce it's spending and so on but at the end of the day money still has to be raised somehow.
So if we look at it from the perspective of one person. That person pays in lots of ways during their life and then more on death. Are you suggesting that it would be better for them to have to pay more during their life and less/nothing on death?
If there has to be a balance, and obviously there does - scrap IHT and other taxes have to go up to compensate, I'd rather pay more taxes on death than during life. It seems more logical than saying I'll pay more on my earnings when I earn them so that someone else can have without tax what I leave to them when I die.
So if we look at it from the perspective of one person. That person pays in lots of ways during their life and then more on death. Are you suggesting that it would be better for them to have to pay more during their life and less/nothing on death?
If there has to be a balance, and obviously there does - scrap IHT and other taxes have to go up to compensate, I'd rather pay more taxes on death than during life. It seems more logical than saying I'll pay more on my earnings when I earn them so that someone else can have without tax what I leave to them when I die.
HenryJM said:
Well the problem is that the government has to raise money somehow. Of course it should reduce it's spending and so on but at the end of the day money still has to be raised somehow.
So if we look at it from the perspective of one person. That person pays in lots of ways during their life and then more on death. Are you suggesting that it would be better for them to have to pay more during their life and less/nothing on death?
If there has to be a balance, and obviously there does - scrap IHT and other taxes have to go up to compensate, I'd rather pay more taxes on death than during life. It seems more logical than saying I'll pay more on my earnings when I earn them so that someone else can have without tax what I leave to them when I die.
Alternatively, they could stop pissing what they do raise in taxes up the wall?So if we look at it from the perspective of one person. That person pays in lots of ways during their life and then more on death. Are you suggesting that it would be better for them to have to pay more during their life and less/nothing on death?
If there has to be a balance, and obviously there does - scrap IHT and other taxes have to go up to compensate, I'd rather pay more taxes on death than during life. It seems more logical than saying I'll pay more on my earnings when I earn them so that someone else can have without tax what I leave to them when I die.
I know it's from 1998 but it stuck in my mind because of the sheer arrogance and ridiculousness involved. Think about this when you come to hand over that 40%.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/61665.stm
Red Devil said:
You conveniently ignore the fact that the vast bulk of the estate is tied up in bricks (or maybe stone) and mortar. According to you, it would seem that wishing to carry on living in the family home (and maybe bring up your own there) can only be classed as greed. Jeez, you're a cynical cold fish and no mistake. And WTF has obligation got to do with it? Are you also seriously suggesting that parents have no right to pass on their estate to their children? The fact that some may go on to b**** about the specifics of what is, or is not, left to them is a complete red herring.
The idea that someone's family home might have some meaning for them doesn't even figure on your radar. The only thing one can do is liquidate the asset. Explain to me why I should be forced by the government to do so. To pay off HMRC (plus the interest on the bank loan that I had no choice but to take out) meant doing just that.
The problem is not with IHT per se but that the thresholds have simply not kept pace with property price inflation. IHT is a fancy name for what used to be called Death Duties. Back in the day DD caught only the top tier of wealthy people. Successive governments tinker around with the IHT threshold and bands while ignoring what happens in the real world. By suppressing the rate of increase it effectively becomes a stealth tax on an increasing proportion of the population. Far more people now come within its icy grip than in the past.
IHT is actually a charge on the estate, not the son(s) and/or daughter(s) (who nevertheless are the ones who have to find the cash) which is why I had to sell the house. Successive governments taxed my father pretty heavily during his lifetime (far less so during retirement as his income dropped over those 25 years and inflation further eroded what he did receive). The net effect (after my mother died) was that a subsequent one decided to do a hatchet job on him for having had the temerity to die.
What Red said...The idea that someone's family home might have some meaning for them doesn't even figure on your radar. The only thing one can do is liquidate the asset. Explain to me why I should be forced by the government to do so. To pay off HMRC (plus the interest on the bank loan that I had no choice but to take out) meant doing just that.
The problem is not with IHT per se but that the thresholds have simply not kept pace with property price inflation. IHT is a fancy name for what used to be called Death Duties. Back in the day DD caught only the top tier of wealthy people. Successive governments tinker around with the IHT threshold and bands while ignoring what happens in the real world. By suppressing the rate of increase it effectively becomes a stealth tax on an increasing proportion of the population. Far more people now come within its icy grip than in the past.
IHT is actually a charge on the estate, not the son(s) and/or daughter(s) (who nevertheless are the ones who have to find the cash) which is why I had to sell the house. Successive governments taxed my father pretty heavily during his lifetime (far less so during retirement as his income dropped over those 25 years and inflation further eroded what he did receive). The net effect (after my mother died) was that a subsequent one decided to do a hatchet job on him for having had the temerity to die.
Henry, you make the point that the tax income has to come from somewhere. I agree, but what annoys me every time I put the news on, is some crap about lowering the deficit this, limiting borrowing that etc.
What the actual f
k do the Government think they're doing? We're around a £TRILLION in debt, and still borrowing?No wonder they need all this money, don't we spend something like £80m a day, just servicing the debt? IT NEEDS TO COME DOWN NOW!
I don't borrow beyond my means, the bank wouldn't allow it. The Government and previous ones, have got this country shafted, and it'll be like this for decades!
Imagine how prosperous Britain would be if we actually had a surplus! Taxes could come down/get scrapped, and we'd have an enviable country again! The only thing that attracts people to this country now are the multitude of benefits you can get as soon as you get through the door! Can't speak English? No worries, here's a leaflet printed in one of 200 languages, telling you exactly what you can get and how to get it!
Sorry, sorry, off on a tangent there, still, the point is, we've got taxes for everything (except breathing) in the UK, but we shouldn't need them, and I still begrudge giving HMG any more than I will have before my death!
Carry on...
[quote=Jim1556]
I don't borrow beyond my means, the bank wouldn't allow it. /quote]
Where have you been? As much as people like to think the banking crisis was just about them paying themselves too much, half the problem was toxic loans to people who couldn't afford to pay.
That aside, I agree about reducing the deficit, and I'd start with castrating people like this if it meant we could reduce my tax bill
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2450754/Un...
I don't borrow beyond my means, the bank wouldn't allow it. /quote]
Where have you been? As much as people like to think the banking crisis was just about them paying themselves too much, half the problem was toxic loans to people who couldn't afford to pay.
That aside, I agree about reducing the deficit, and I'd start with castrating people like this if it meant we could reduce my tax bill
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2450754/Un...
CoffeeTreat]im1556 said:
I don't borrow beyond my means, the bank wouldn't allow it.
Where have you been? As much as people like to think the banking crisis was just about them paying themselves too much, half the problem was toxic loans to people who couldn't afford to pay. That aside, I agree about reducing the deficit, and I'd start with castrating people like this if it meant we could reduce my tax bill
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2450754/Un...
CoffeeTreat said:
jim1556 said:
I don't borrow beyond my means, the bank wouldn't allow it.
Where have you been? As much as people like to think the banking crisis was just about them paying themselves too much, half the problem was toxic loans to people who couldn't afford to pay. That aside, I agree about reducing the deficit, and I'd start with castrating people like this if it meant we could reduce my tax bill
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2450754/Un...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff