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

[PurpleMoonlight]

Mr Whippy said:

There are some real whingers here.

If you want to 'avoid' IHT being due on the inheritance your beneficiaries will receive on your death, then start gifting it away NOW, before you're dead.

That is the simplest and easiest initial action.

That's an excellent idea, thanks.

Now, if you can tell me when I am going to die I'll put together a plan.

[BJG1]

PurpleMoonlight said:

That's an excellent idea, thanks.

Now, if you can tell me when I am going to die I'll put together a plan.

You don't need to know - just make sure you have life insurance in place to cover the tax liability in case of an early death. When you get into your 60s start gifting your assets.

[PurpleMoonlight]

BJG1 said:

You don't need to know - just make sure you have life insurance in place to cover the tax liability in case of an early death. When you get into your 60s start gifting your assets.

That's not avoiding IHT it's funding it via a different method.

I've also recently seen insurers reducing the sum assured which could completely screw up any plan.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Sunday 21st August 15:13

[Mr Whippy]

PurpleMoonlight said:

BJG1 said:

You don't need to know - just make sure you have life insurance in place to cover the tax liability in case of an early death. When you get into your 60s start gifting your assets.

That's not avoiding IHT it's funding it via a different method.

Insure for the 50-65 year period and gift across those years.

Unless you don't trust your beneficiaries.

In which case, why do you care so much about a bit of IHT they'll have to pay to receive your money on your death?


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?



If you're just as weary of your beneficiaries to screw you over, as you are the government, then I'd say you're just a miser pissed off at the concept of your death and not being happy with ANYONE having your money.

In which case, SPEND it all before you die if you're so fking tight!

[BJG1]

PurpleMoonlight said:

That's not avoiding IHT it's funding it via a different method.

I've also recently seen insurers reducing the sum assured which could completely screw up any plan.

It's avoiding your estate paying 99% of it. I presume neither you nor your kids would be too put out if Aviva/AXA paid the bill instead of your Estate.

[Hosenbugler]

BJG1 said:

Hosenbugler said:

I'm not interested in any self righteous "political position" , you support stealing from my kids , stealing money and assets I worked my back off for . So yes, I will be angry, seriously so, as said , you and your ilk are on par with burglars.

Incidentally, death is the most extreme form of incapacitation and from what I gather , permanent.

I wouldn't worry. You're clearly not intelligent enough to leave much other than a lifetime of disapointment to your kids.

Ah, yes, eventually, the pompous self righteous arrogance of somebody who knows better . I thought it would come out sooner or later.

Curiously enough , for somebody who is so thick that they retired at age 45, I've obviously had no success , so little success, in fact that I have a hatred of inheritance tax , and those who think its perfectly ok to steal from other people's kids, can't think why.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

PurpleMoonlight said:

I'm struggling to see why the Government should have a second dip at your wealth simply because you have died.

Take someone that has never purchased a property and simply saved every penny they could as cash in the bank (or wherever). They have £500,000 in the bank on death.

They have paid income tax on their earnings over the years.

They have paid income tax on any interest they have received from the bank.

Why should the Government get an additional tax of 40% x £175,000 on death?

If someone earns £15K a year (not a great salary), they would be paying 20% on about £3K of that, so £600 give or take. That's quite sad I think. Someone being left £500K and only getting £430K after tax, for doing fk all, isn't going to keep me awake at night. That's about 30 years of hard graft for the person on £15K.

[PurpleMoonlight]

BJG1 said:

It's avoiding your estate paying 99% of it. I presume neither you nor your kids would be too put out if Aviva/AXA paid the bill instead of your Estate.

You can't state that with any degree of certainty as there are many variables.

Also, you must have seen the warnings that the premiums paid can be greater than the sum assured paid out.

[BJG1]

Hosenbugler said:

Ah, yes, eventually, the pompous self righteous arrogance of somebody who knows better . I thought it would come out sooner or later.

Curiously enough , for somebody who is so thick that they retired at age 45, I've obviously had no success , so little success, in fact that I have a hatred of inheritance tax , and those who think its perfectly ok to steal from other people's kids, can't think why.

Well if you act like a for long enough someone might call you out on it.

Congratulations on retiring . I know many people who are vastly more successful than you that don't have the same bizarre resentment for tax than you, so maybe it's more to do with your own bitterness and chipped shoulder than simply the success you've had? There are others on this thread, including myself, who've done well for themselves that don't have the same views as you.

[BJG1]

PurpleMoonlight said:

You can't state that with any degree of certainty as there are many variables.

Also, you must have seen the warnings that the premiums paid can be greater than the sum assured paid out.

Life insurance is pretty cheap when you're young. I can get about £1m in cover for a few hundred quid a year. As you get older and the premiums increase you're better off cancelling it and starting to gift your assets.

[Hosenbugler]

BJG1 said:

Hosenbugler said:

Ah, yes, eventually, the pompous self righteous arrogance of somebody who knows better . I thought it would come out sooner or later.

Curiously enough , for somebody who is so thick that they retired at age 45, I've obviously had no success , so little success, in fact that I have a hatred of inheritance tax , and those who think its perfectly ok to steal from other people's kids, can't think why.

Well if you act like a for long enough someone might call you out on it.

Congratulations on retiring . I know many people who are vastly more successful than you that don't have the same bizarre resentment for tax than you, so maybe it's more to do with your own bitterness and chipped shoulder than simply the success you've had? There are others on this thread, including myself, who've done well for themselves that don't have the same views as you.

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.

[BJG1]

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.

But we don't think stealing is acceptable? I really don't see why you're struggling so much with this...

I don't think you can steal from a corpse. When you die, you cease to be a person, you are simply rotting matter and have no legal rights. That's my opinion, at least. You can disagree with it but it's not the same as me thinking stealing is acceptable.

I believe as your body returns to the earth, your assets should return to society. If you have died having not given your assets to your children beforehand, maybe you don't care about them as much as you think you do?

[Randy Winkman]

Hosenbugler said:

BJG1 said:

Hosenbugler said:

Ah, yes, eventually, the pompous self righteous arrogance of somebody who knows better . I thought it would come out sooner or later.

Curiously enough , for somebody who is so thick that they retired at age 45, I've obviously had no success , so little success, in fact that I have a hatred of inheritance tax , and those who think its perfectly ok to steal from other people's kids, can't think why.

Well if you act like a for long enough someone might call you out on it.

Congratulations on retiring . I know many people who are vastly more successful than you that don't have the same bizarre resentment for tax than you, so maybe it's more to do with your own bitterness and chipped shoulder than simply the success you've had? There are others on this thread, including myself, who've done well for themselves that don't have the same views as you.

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.

But someone has to pay for the society where you got that money.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Randy Winkman said:

But someone has to pay for the society where you got that money.

The government collects money via hundreds of different methods, it could easily abolish IHT and increase some of the others, or create a new tax, or indeed, SPEND LESS.

[sidicks]

BJG1 said:

This thread is about a vast estate being handed down to a young man who's done nothing to prove he's capable or deserving of owning them. Their transfer to someone who can afford them as a result of their own hard work is more likely to lead to more efficient use than not.

Strictly speaking no-one has been 'handed' anything - hence why IHT is NOT due!

BJG1 said:

I agree the Government is inefficient with money and if you've read my posts in this thread I'm suprised you've drawn the conclusion I'm perfectly happy with IHT working exactly as it does currently

Perhaps you can remind me where I made such a statement?

BJG1 said:

I'm merely defending the principle of some form of redistribution on death.

'Some form' is the key - as it stands IHT involves far too many estates - it should be the exception, not the norm.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 21st August 15:59

[Hosenbugler]

BJG1 said:

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.

But we don't think stealing is acceptable? I really don't see why you're struggling so much with this...

I don't think you can steal from a corpse. When you die, you cease to be a person, you are simply rotting matter and have no legal rights. That's my opinion, at least. You can disagree with it but it's not the same as me thinking stealing is acceptable.

I believe as your body returns to the earth, your assets should return to society. If you have died having not given your assets to your children beforehand, maybe you don't care about them as much as you think you do?

Oh dear, more pompous patronising.

As repeatedly said, you support stealing from my kids, against my wishes. Waffling symantics are irrelevant.

What I can do so far has been done. The only problem is inflation creep, you have to live somewhere and all the thieves like you have to do is hold the inheritance tax threshold and time and inflation does the rest. Shared ownership with offsprings is not a magic bullet and has its risks.

You know that though.

[Oakey]

If anyone here fancies cutting out the middleman and redistributing some of their wealth in my direction today, pm for bank details

[Randy Winkman]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Randy Winkman said:

But someone has to pay for the society where you got that money.

The government collects money via hundreds of different methods, it could easily abolish IHT and increase some of the others, or create a new tax, or indeed, SPEND LESS.

Increases in tax or new taxes? That will be popular. Spending less is a separate argument, isn't it? Even if they did that, why not cut income tax (tax on work) instead of IHT?

[Hosenbugler]

Oakey said:

If anyone here fancies cutting out the middleman and redistributing some of their wealth in my direction today, pm for bank details

Nothing like an opportunist Be carefull though, don't be too successful and then fall off a ladder, there are those who will be straight in your wallet, robbing the corpse.

[anonymous-user]

Hosenbugler said:

Oh dear, more pompous patronising.

As repeatedly said, you support stealing from my kids, against my wishes. Waffling symantics are irrelevant.

Hilarious. Any other legal taxation you regard as stealing from your kids (against your wishes) or is it just inheritance tax?