Quick question - inheritance tax...
Discussion
Jasandjules said:
You don't know whether it is money that has been generated or taxed previously. That is part of the issue.
And you have already paid VAT, IPT, Fuel Duty and VED and Council tax whilst making this money. That is the entire point.
It may be the entire point but it's not a convincing one nor strictly relevant.And you have already paid VAT, IPT, Fuel Duty and VED and Council tax whilst making this money. That is the entire point.
What still hasn't been provided is an explanation of why IHT is any more unfair than any other tax.
Jasandjules said:
You don't know whether it is money that has been generated or taxed previously. That is part of the issue.
And you have already paid VAT, IPT, Fuel Duty and VED and Council tax whilst making this money. That is the entire point.
And you don't know whether the other money has been taxed previously either. And you have already paid VAT, IPT, Fuel Duty and VED and Council tax whilst making this money. That is the entire point.
How can it be just to tax income that has definitely already been taxed, but yet unjust if it might have been. That seems to be the crux of your argument and it makes no sense.
Yes all of those listed taxes have been paid to build up this asset... You even pay the road tax and the tax on the fuel and fuel pump for the builders van (let alone a slice of the corporation tax for the business that sold teh pump, and their business rates and the income tax of the guy that sold the fuel pump)!
BUT you want to tax it all some more? Surely taxes aren't never ending and limitless? Surely there is a human right to give your kid a home - never has it been more valid or more important?
£1m should do it a bit better
BUT you want to tax it all some more? Surely taxes aren't never ending and limitless? Surely there is a human right to give your kid a home - never has it been more valid or more important?
£1m should do it a bit better
Ken Figenus said:
Yes all of those listed taxes have been paid to build up this asset... You even pay the road tax and the tax on the fuel and fuel pump for the builders van (let alone a slice of the corporation tax for the business that sold teh pump, and their business rates and the income tax of the guy that sold the fuel pump)!
BUT you want to tax it all some more? Surely taxes aren't never ending and limitless? Surely there is a human right to give your kid a home - never has it been more valid or more important?
£1m should do it a bit better
This isn't about "want", this is about people making a sensible argument as to why it should be scrapped and then explaining how they'd fill the hole that the removal of this tax creates. BUT you want to tax it all some more? Surely taxes aren't never ending and limitless? Surely there is a human right to give your kid a home - never has it been more valid or more important?
£1m should do it a bit better
So far we have two arguments "I don't like it" amd "it's unfair to double tax", neither of which are up to much. Personally I'd happily pay all my taxes via IHT, if it meant the removal of VAT and income tax.
swerni said:
As i said earlier.
Tax the self employed on the same basis as PAYE.
The new rules on landlords and tax relief against interest will help.
Maybe even a much higher stamp duty on second homes.
That lot should fill the hole quite nicely.
But I don't like them. Maybe I should start a thread to that effect and it could run and run. Tax the self employed on the same basis as PAYE.
The new rules on landlords and tax relief against interest will help.
Maybe even a much higher stamp duty on second homes.
That lot should fill the hole quite nicely.
You've put a proposal together to fill the hole, now explain why it's such an unjust tax.
swerni said:
JacquesMesrine said:
swerni said:
As i said earlier.
Tax the self employed on the same basis as PAYE.
The new rules on landlords and tax relief against interest will help.
Maybe even a much higher stamp duty on second homes.
That lot should fill the hole quite nicely.
But I don't like them. Maybe I should start a thread to that effect and it could run and run. Tax the self employed on the same basis as PAYE.
The new rules on landlords and tax relief against interest will help.
Maybe even a much higher stamp duty on second homes.
That lot should fill the hole quite nicely.
You've put a proposal together to fill the hole, now explain why it's such an unjust tax.
JacquesMesrine said:
This isn't about "want", this is about people making a sensible argument as to why it should be scrapped and then explaining how they'd fill the hole that the removal of this tax creates.
I answered it.This is about people making a sensible as to why it should be scrapped.
If you look at the bit you emboldened it's just before it, so not hard to miss. I'm not biting on your ideas btw, they're a bit too obvious.
The "hole" is a straw man. As before, there is an awful lot of waste in Govt, that could be changed. Going further, things like Stamp Duty have made billions more in the recent years due to property prices. They don't suddenly mention the taxes they can reduce to this increase do they?? There is a lot more tax out there if collected properly too.
swerni said:
Taxing income as source is a far fairer and consistent way of doing it, simple as that.
If you did that you'd have no need to tax it a second time round.
You're make an assumption that wealth has been created purely by property gain that is unearned, I'm not. (This gain is vastly unfair as you've previously stated)
Does that answer both parts?
But it's already taxed at source and we still have to pay other taxed too. Your argument just doesn't make sense. If you did that you'd have no need to tax it a second time round.
You're make an assumption that wealth has been created purely by property gain that is unearned, I'm not. (This gain is vastly unfair as you've previously stated)
Does that answer both parts?
Jasandjules said:
The "hole" is a straw man. As before, there is an awful lot of waste in Govt, that could be changed. Going further, things like Stamp Duty have made billions more in the recent years due to property prices. They don't suddenly mention the taxes they can reduce to this increase do they?? There is a lot more tax out there if collected properly too.
The waste is still there if you abolished it today. You can't pretend that abolishing IHT suddenly gets rid of the waste. Extra taxes are needed to shore up our finances. We've overspent by 10% year on year for decades, at some point we need to start spending less and have more taxation income to reduce the debt.
swerni said:
Od course it doesn't, you're very good at selective reading to suite your view of fair.
I'm oooooout
There's no selective reading. We are taxed at every turn, every penny we have in our pockets has been taxed (or is part of an allowance) and it will be taxed again when it is spent in a variety of ways. There is no way to just tax at source in isolation, it is impossible, as money doesn't start and end, it goes in a never ending circle. I'm oooooout
Laters
Jasandjules said:
singlecoil said:
What still hasn't been provided is an explanation of why IHT is any more unfair than any other tax.
Because it is a tax on items that may have already had tax paid on them. A possible double or triple tax.Taxing remnants of taxed taxes seems punitive compared to the under the table deals that permits businesses making billions IN UK to avoid taxes. This 'legal avoidance' was totally purposeful and created by government in the 60's via offshore rules. Kickbacks and Non Exec directorships abounded no doubt.
It is clearly utterly wrong that there is virtually no tax on money made HERE (other than a bit of allowance for elsewhere HQ and marketing costs) and clearly an utterly corrupt situation (do a 2% deal with Ireland/Liechtenstein/Luxembourg on your $4bn pa) and screw the UK taxpayer for all that you can and their dead relatives...!
Happy to have a chat about fairness of tax on my old mum's jewellery that she wants to leave to my daughter, and our family home (that my grandad built) to me, but only once this utter fix has been addressed. Tackle giants not minions.
>sorry its a bit OT but hopefully explains why heels are dug in - the notion of giving it all away when you guess you have about 7 years left is disgustingly primitive and impractical<<
It is clearly utterly wrong that there is virtually no tax on money made HERE (other than a bit of allowance for elsewhere HQ and marketing costs) and clearly an utterly corrupt situation (do a 2% deal with Ireland/Liechtenstein/Luxembourg on your $4bn pa) and screw the UK taxpayer for all that you can and their dead relatives...!
Happy to have a chat about fairness of tax on my old mum's jewellery that she wants to leave to my daughter, and our family home (that my grandad built) to me, but only once this utter fix has been addressed. Tackle giants not minions.
>sorry its a bit OT but hopefully explains why heels are dug in - the notion of giving it all away when you guess you have about 7 years left is disgustingly primitive and impractical<<
Ken Figenus said:
Taxing remnants of taxed taxes seems punitive compared to the under the table deals that permits businesses making billions IN UK to avoid taxes. This 'legal avoidance' was totally purposeful and created by government in the 60's via offshore rules. Kickbacks and Non Exec directorships abounded no doubt.
It is clearly utterly wrong that there is virtually no tax on money made HERE (other than a bit of allowance for elsewhere HQ and marketing costs) and clearly an utterly corrupt situation (do a 2% deal with Ireland/Liechtenstein/Luxembourg on your $4bn pa) and screw the UK taxpayer for all that you can and their dead relatives...!
Happy to have a chat about fairness of tax on my old mum's jewellery that she wants to leave to my daughter, and our family home (that my grandad built) to me, but only once this utter fix has been addressed. Tackle giants not minions.
>sorry its a bit OT but hopefully explains why heels are dug in - the notion of giving it all away when you guess you have about 7 years left is disgustingly primitive and impractical<<
Tax is just a levy on the transfer of money, everyone pays it, unless you are rich/powerful enough to avoid it. In the end all money ends up going through the state's hands, given money is just a construct backed by the state and not real it kind of makes sense.It is clearly utterly wrong that there is virtually no tax on money made HERE (other than a bit of allowance for elsewhere HQ and marketing costs) and clearly an utterly corrupt situation (do a 2% deal with Ireland/Liechtenstein/Luxembourg on your $4bn pa) and screw the UK taxpayer for all that you can and their dead relatives...!
Happy to have a chat about fairness of tax on my old mum's jewellery that she wants to leave to my daughter, and our family home (that my grandad built) to me, but only once this utter fix has been addressed. Tackle giants not minions.
>sorry its a bit OT but hopefully explains why heels are dug in - the notion of giving it all away when you guess you have about 7 years left is disgustingly primitive and impractical<<
The problem a lot of us have is that IHT hits the notional monetary value of a physical asset which we have no intention of turning into money.
Even if we were to adopt a scheme where no tax was payable if you did not sell for at least seven years this is ripe for abuse. We could then end up with a horribly complex set of rules which would still see tax being avoided by some and paid by others that should not due to misapprehension.
On a pragmatic level it is what it is, we have a vote and even if it is choosing which is least worse.
Edited by Toltec on Monday 8th February 14:21
JacquesMesrine said:
The waste is still there if you abolished it today. You can't pretend that abolishing IHT suddenly gets rid of the waste.
Extra taxes are needed to shore up our finances. We've overspent by 10% year on year for decades, at some point we need to start spending less and have more taxation income to reduce the debt.
Where on earth did anyone say abolishing IHT will cure waste?Extra taxes are needed to shore up our finances. We've overspent by 10% year on year for decades, at some point we need to start spending less and have more taxation income to reduce the debt.
The argument made was that you can't abolish IHT because they need to find the money. The point then is that if you reduce waste, you don't need the IHT revenue.. Simple?
Jasandjules said:
Where on earth did anyone say abolishing IHT will cure waste?
The argument made was that you can't abolish IHT because they need to find the money. The point then is that if you reduce waste, you don't need the IHT revenue.. Simple?
The problem is one man's waste is another's income and you can bet the people reducing the waste will not reduce their own incomes. Or the incomes of anyone that supplies them with an income. The argument made was that you can't abolish IHT because they need to find the money. The point then is that if you reduce waste, you don't need the IHT revenue.. Simple?
Jasandjules said:
Where on earth did anyone say abolishing IHT will cure waste?
The argument made was that you can't abolish IHT because they need to find the money. The point then is that if you reduce waste, you don't need the IHT revenue.. Simple?
Superb. You've taken the point, answered it badly, then tri d to flip it 180 degrees. Good effort, but not the result you want I'm afraid. The argument made was that you can't abolish IHT because they need to find the money. The point then is that if you reduce waste, you don't need the IHT revenue.. Simple?
I'll repeat what was said.
You suggested there is no need to replace the tax lost if IHT were to be abolished, due to being able to recoup the money via eliminating waste.
I said that if you abolish IHT it does not immediately remove the waste. I agree that there is waste, but that should be eliminated irreplaceable of what happens with IHT.
You need to explain how to plug the gap and not try to push your fallacy onto me and claim it as a victory.
The waste is a red herring, it could be used to reduce income tax or VAT or fuel duty or something else. It does not have to be used on IHT.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
swerni said:
Maybe even a much higher stamp duty on second homes.
That lot should fill the hole quite nicely.
So you're in favour of higher stamp duty on a 2nd home you buy (out of taxed income) but you're against IHT on a second home you inherit. That lot should fill the hole quite nicely.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff