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

[hairyben]

jonah35 said:

Iht is necessary and fairer than cgt and income tax. Without it the rich would get richer and the poor would stay poor.

The money is in a trust so there will be tax to pay just not iht.

I'm all for taxing those with the mostest but Iht is a blunt, ineffective and unfair means, as can be seen by the reason this thread exists the rich avoid it with ease but those with much less often get clobbered, particularly if they suffer unexpected bereavments, then have the pain of losing family home etc

[PurpleMoonlight]

Randy Winkman said:

If we get rid of inheritance tax, which tax should we put up to make up the difference?

Tax the growth on property via CGT.

I cannot see any justification for it to be exempt.

[BJG1]

I don't know if inheritance tax is the correct means but there needs to be a system in place that stops the transfer of land and wealth from generation-to-generation. With Dukes and the like, there has often never been any real sense of 'earning' the money and taking it away from that family is simply righting a wrong which occurred hundreds of years ago.

It's important because the current system doesn't encourage the most economically efficient use of capital and assets. Passing on that estate to a 25 year old who may or may not have any business or entrepreunerial talent is much worse for the country than were it to be accessible to the open market and made best use of.

[Hosenbugler]

Inheritance tax is just another example of state stealing, an assault on the wishes of the deceased. My estate is and will be sewn up tight, the bds will not get a cent from my estate when I go.

The threshold is £325000 , which means just about any homeowner in the home counties is susceptible to being collared if they have the misfortune to die. fking disgraceful , the odious pointy nosed Labour lefties love it of course , obsessed with other peoples money.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Randy Winkman said:

If we get rid of inheritance tax, which tax should we put up to make up the difference?

Tax the growth on property via CGT.

I cannot see any justification for it to be exempt.

I see. So mum dies (dad died a few years ago) and as things stand, you get £625K tax free. For most people, even today, that'll mean no IHT to pay. But you suggest no IHT, but instead, the inherited house, which is worth an average £300K, and was bought by your parents for £15K in 1975, is now subject to tax at 40% on £285K increase.

I can't see your plan being hugely popular.

[Jonesy23]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Tax the growth on property via CGT.

I cannot see any justification for it to be exempt.

So are you suggesting taxing the theoretical increase in value of an asset you still hold, rather than a realised gain?

Or applying CGT in all situations so you can't even move between identical houses without losing a fortune in the process and therefore basically making it impractical to ever move?

With this sort of economic logic you must be George Osborne AICMFP.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Jonesy23 said:

So are you suggesting taxing the theoretical increase in value of an asset you still hold, rather than a realised gain?

The profit would be taxed when the gain in realised, as with other implications of CGT.

[Jonesy23]

BJG1 said:

I don't know if inheritance tax is the correct means but there needs to be a system in place that stops the transfer of land and wealth from generation-to-generation. With Dukes and the like, there has often never been any real sense of 'earning' the money and taking it away from that family is simply righting a wrong which occurred hundreds of years ago.

It's important because the current system doesn't encourage the most economically efficient use of capital and assets. Passing on that estate to a 25 year old who may or may not have any business or entrepreunerial talent is much worse for the country than were it to be accessible to the open market and made best use of.

When I read this I think "this is someone with no assets of their own who is really keen to get the state to give them someone else's"


Any family which is incapable of proper management and use of the estate assets over generations soon finds themselves with nothing left but the title. It happened in the majority of cases. Meanwhile if you've managed to hang on to a big chunk of land for 900+ years there will have been a hell of a lot of effort to do so over that time.

In this case things are distorted because a relatively tiny chunk of pretty crappy land happened to end up as a highly valuable part of London. Bulk holdings of farm land don't have the same massive value to them so lots of other people own 'more' but without the silly valuation.

[mikeyr]

Isn't a reason for inheritance tax that you try to prevent a generation from not having to work? Just throwing it it there...

[ClaphamGT3]

Very much as Jonesy said above. It's also worth noting for all those who feel that this is the tax free transfer of unearned wealth that, in 1978, when The last Duke inherited the estate and title, the estate was a basket case; badly run and up to its eyes in debt. It was Gerald and his long time CEO Jeremy Newsum who turned the estate into the business it is today (with Jeremy's successor, Mark Preston latterly playing a big part too).

[SpeckledJim]

I thought PH was all for earning ones own money, not being given it?

Inheritance is clearly the acceptable hand-out, because that is only the one that we grafting PHers will get?

[Dr Jekyll]

SpeckledJim said:

I thought PH was all for earning ones own money, not being given it?

The point is that once we've earned it we don't want the government to be given it.

[Guybrush]

Inheritance tax is not just a tax on the wise who have saved, it's a tax on items which have risen by inflation. I know tax doesn't have to be logical, but a tax which keeps people in their place is unreasonable.

[Pesty]

gruffalo said:

Hard to argue that it is fair so I won't begin to try.

My view is that no one should pay it.

That.

[zygalski]

Hosenbugler said:

Inheritance tax is just another example of state stealing, an assault on the wishes of the deceased. My estate is and will be sewn up tight, the bds will not get a cent from my estate when I go.

The threshold is £325000 , which means just about any homeowner in the home counties is susceptible to being collared if they have the misfortune to die. fking disgraceful , the odious pointy nosed Labour lefties love it of course , obsessed with other peoples money.

So which tax would you put up to compensate for the loss of £5bn pa inheritance tax revenue?

[technodup]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

In your own example above, the bit where you say "You make some money from investment"..... that never got taxed. Even in your own story it never got taxed. So that money isn't being taxed over and over, it's been taxed for the first time.

If I earn £1000 today it gets taxed. I put it in the bank and earn £10 interest, which gets taxed. And if I make £100 on an investment that gets taxed too. If you're arguing its the interest, therefore new money I suppose strictly speaking that's true, but you wouldn't be able to earn it if it wasn't for the original taxed amount.

Either way we are taxed too much and too often.

[Jasandjules]

IF we are to have inheritance tax, then it should be paid by all. Not avoided by the wealthy.

My personal view is there should be no inheritance tax whatsoever, however as there is, it should be paid by all in my view.

[zygalski]

Guybrush said:

Inheritance tax is not just a tax on the wise who have saved, it's a tax on items which have risen by inflation. I know tax doesn't have to be logical, but a tax which keeps people in their place is unreasonable.

It's mostly a tax on property. UK property prices rise massively higher than inflation.
I'm a homeowner, but let's face it, I haven't earned the increases in properties I've bought. I've just sat on the safest asset money can buy & paid my monthly dues whilst the house price rises stupidly.
My last house was purchased in 1999 for £89k & I sold last year for £260k. The average UK full time take home salary in 1999 was about £20,800. In 2015 it was £29,934
It's only fair to pay my share when I snuff it.

[Hosenbugler]

zygalski said:

Hosenbugler said:

Inheritance tax is just another example of state stealing, an assault on the wishes of the deceased. My estate is and will be sewn up tight, the bds will not get a cent from my estate when I go.

The threshold is £325000 , which means just about any homeowner in the home counties is susceptible to being collared if they have the misfortune to die. fking disgraceful , the odious pointy nosed Labour lefties love it of course , obsessed with other peoples money.

So which tax would you put up to compensate for the loss of £5bn pa inheritance tax revenue?

None, spend less.

[ThunderGuts]

Hosenbugler said:

None, spend less.

Well done. You've just given the socialist a heart attack