9.9bn Quid, 0% tax. Tell me PH, How is this fair?

[sidicks]

zygalski said:

To make such obviously flawed assumptions about people whose financial situations they clearly know nothing about smacks of insecurity to me.

zygalski said:

Probably thinks the only 'fair' tax is VAT, because proportionately it hits the poorer in society hardest & therefore encourages them to better themselves

[BJG1]

zygalski said:

I think those in this thread who accuse you & I (who will both pay IHT & won't resent doing so) of being envious need to take a good hard look in the mirror. To make such obviously flawed assumptions about people whose financial situations they clearly know nothing about smacks of insecurity to me.

I did notice it comes from people who don't list their garage, obviously don't want us knowing about all those Ferraris they own.

PurpleMoonlight said:

You can volunteer to pay more you know.

I think Government spending and taxation are too high. I have no desire to pay more tax.

[BigMon]

zygalski said:

Probably thinks the only 'fair' tax is VAT, because proportionately it hits the poorer in society hardest & therefore encourages them to better themselves

The mantra of the right wing! You forgot to mention socialists, scroungers and, erm, some other random nonsense.

[sidicks]

BigMon said:

What would you define as a 'fair share' to society?

Generally (unless you have very creative accountants) the more you earn or have the more tax you pay.

In most cases, there is equal opportunity but frequently unequal effort - is the 'fair share' the same for both?

BigMon said:

It's not a difficult concept.

Which suggest that your definition of 'fair share' is inextricable and directly linked to 'whatever number the government decides'...

[BigMon]

sidicks said:

In pst cases, there is equal opportunity but frequently unequal effort - is the 'fair share' the same for both?

What do you mean by 'pst cases'?

[sidicks]

BigMon said:

What do you mean by 'pst cases'?

edited - see above.

[BigMon]

How do you define fair share though? A sliding scale of inheritance tax based on the size of the estate?

Similar to how stamp duty works (but in reverse)?

[Vizsla]

Hosenbugler said:

I worked far too hard, from nothing, to have my assets stolen on a whim, against my wishes , because I 've died. My back is turned, just like the victim of the burglar.

Any anger I have , is reserved for those who deserve it, burglars included. As for the views of others, well, up to them, don't expect me to be overjoyed at the potential prospect to be stolen from , and don't be surprised at my attitude to those who think stealing is acceptable.

Am I alone in imagining this drivel spoken in the voice of the Harry Enfield character 'Angry Frank'?

[andy_s]

Why can't you give your kids your money?

[mikees]

IHT is a tax on the unprepared not the rich. No one ( well some who are unlucky, ie die within 7 years of gifting) ever has to pay if they plan and organise their finances.

Trusts are there, legally to mitigate, if gifting is not you're thing.


I'm sure there are a few cases that I will have missed but tax planning is nit that hard-just need some expert advice.

Mike

[sidicks]

mikees said:

IHT is a tax on the unprepared not the rich. No one ( well some who are unlucky, ie die within 7 years of gifting) ever has to pay if they plan and organise their finances.

Trusts are there, legally to mitigate, if gifting is not you're thing.


I'm sure there are a few cases that I will have missed but tax planning is nit that hard-just need some expert advice.

Mike

Which suggests it's a meaningless tax and should be abolished...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Hosenbugler said:

I worked far too hard, from nothing, to have my assets stolen on a whim, against my wishes , because I 've died. My back is turned, just like the victim of the burglar.

Any anger I have , is reserved for those who deserve it, burglars included. As for the views of others, well, up to them, don't expect me to be overjoyed at the potential prospect to be stolen from , and don't be surprised at my attitude to those who think stealing is acceptable.

There's some good posts on this thread, from those on both sides of the argument, putting their case. This isn't one of them. It's utter bks are you're embarrassing yourself with this complete piffle.

[RYH64E]

Mr Whippy said:

I know people who started gifting via appropriate mechanisms once their kids reached 18 years old, so that by the time they died then no one would have any tax to pay.
That's just sensible no? Also prudent given their kids have more use of it at that age, than when they too have reached the twilight years of their life?

That's what I'm doing, my daughter starts at university this year so I'll be buying her her first house next year, my boy starts a couple of years later and I'll do the same for him, and my parents have been instructed to cut me out of their will and leave my share of their estate to my kids. What's the point of making the kids wait until you die before they get some money, better they get it when they most need it.

'Appropriate mechanisms' is key, you've got to make sure anything you give them is protected.

[Olivera]

sidicks said:

mikees said:

IHT is a tax on the unprepared not the rich. No one ( well some who are unlucky, ie die within 7 years of gifting) ever has to pay if they plan and organise their finances.

Trusts are there, legally to mitigate, if gifting is not you're thing.

I'm sure there are a few cases that I will have missed but tax planning is nit that hard-just need some expert advice.

Mike

Which suggests it's a meaningless tax and should be abolished...

I'd rather it was both harder to avoid and with lower thresholds. So much fairer.

[Randy Winkman]

RYH64E said:

That's what I'm doing, my daughter starts at university this year so I'll be buying her her first house next year, my boy starts a couple of years later and I'll do the same for him, and my parents have been instructed to cut me out of their will and leave my share of their estate to my kids. What's the point of making the kids wait until you die before they get some money, better they get it when they most need it.

'Appropriate mechanisms' is key, you've got to make sure anything you give them is protected.

Good - that's sensible. Though for lots, possibly most, their own home is most of what they have. So they cant plan like that.

[RYH64E]

Randy Winkman said:

Good - that's sensible. Though for lots, possibly most, their own home is most of what they have. So they cant plan like that.

There always the option of downsizing, or if the house is in London, selling up and moving out a bit (which I'd do anyway if I still lived in London), or equity release of one kind or another. There seems little point in tying up a big amount of cash in a fixed asset that you no longer need, especially if it means (your estate) paying even more tax to HMRC. It's bad enough paying the taxes you can't avoid, if tax can be avoided then it damn well should be.

[sidicks]

Olivera said:

I'd rather it was both harder to avoid and with lower thresholds. So much fairer.

Depends on your view of 'fair'...

[Randy Winkman]

RYH64E said:

Randy Winkman said:

Good - that's sensible. Though for lots, possibly most, their own home is most of what they have. So they cant plan like that.

There always the option of downsizing, or if the house is in London, selling up and moving out a bit (which I'd do anyway if I still lived in London), or equity release of one kind or another. There seems little point in tying up a big amount of cash in a fixed asset that you no longer need, especially if it means (your estate) paying even more tax to HMRC. It's bad enough paying the taxes you can't avoid, if tax can be avoided then it damn well should be.

I don't disagree - but you did make it seem rather easy.

[Zombie]

BigMon said:

Anyone who has doubts as to just how right wing the PH forums are should browse this thread.

Laughable really.

And scary in some respects. Hosenburgler is doing a decent job of discrediting that perspective though.

As the OP I wish to clarify my question though, it's not about whether IHT is fair, its about why are the super rich allowed to completely avoid it.

Given that the current rate charged is 40% of the value of estates over £325,000, It's not a tax that most people will have to pay and that should apply to most who populate this forum.

[The Moose]

Zombie said:

BigMon said:

Anyone who has doubts as to just how right wing the PH forums are should browse this thread.

Laughable really.

And scary in some respects. Hosenburgler is doing a decent job of discrediting that perspective though.

As the OP I wish to clarify my question though, it's not about whether IHT is fair, its about why are the super rich allowed to completely avoid it.

Given that the current rate charged is 40% of the value of estates over £325,000, It's not a tax that most people will have to pay and that should apply to most who populate this forum.

I'm not entirely sure that having a net worth of over £325k classifies anyone as part of the "super rich".

As far as I understand it, pretty much anyone can avoid most/all IHT if they so desire. How is that unfair?