9.9bn Quid, 0% tax. Tell me PH, How is this fair?
Discussion
I find those that are for iht are the ones with nothing to inherit, those that stand to get a few quid aren't as keen 
I think it is difficult for those in the middle, above the threshold but not in the position to avoid, then you try and disperse some funds but may live another ten years or more, if you do pass some on and go into care, then the beneficiaries can be told to give it back.
It's a bit of a minefield, some end up bled dry by greedy families trying to get their hands on the loot, all over the old person until they have their cut, never to be seen again.
A start these days for kids via few quid makes a huge difference, a few grand towards a house deposit is hugely valuable, I think most inheritances don't fund enough to allow folk not to work, a lot does end up eaten up by solicitors, funerals, care costs, then iht, then it gets split a number of ways, I don't think most are in line for millions.
I think it is difficult for those in the middle, above the threshold but not in the position to avoid, then you try and disperse some funds but may live another ten years or more, if you do pass some on and go into care, then the beneficiaries can be told to give it back.
It's a bit of a minefield, some end up bled dry by greedy families trying to get their hands on the loot, all over the old person until they have their cut, never to be seen again.
A start these days for kids via few quid makes a huge difference, a few grand towards a house deposit is hugely valuable, I think most inheritances don't fund enough to allow folk not to work, a lot does end up eaten up by solicitors, funerals, care costs, then iht, then it gets split a number of ways, I don't think most are in line for millions.
zygalski said:
johnfm said:
Randy Winkman said:
If we get rid of inheritance tax, which tax should we put up to make up the difference?
I don't know - the state might consider requiring less revenue. How did the UK (And the US for that matter) manage to build roads, railways, fine building etc without such levels of taxation?turbobloke said:
SpeckledJim said:
I thought PH was all for earning ones own money, not being given it?
TBH I can't recall seeing any posts in any threads over the past 14 years which oppose gifting. Nor have lottery wins been the subject of any opposition afaics.I know full well why comfortably-off, middle-class PH rails against inheritance tax. It is because they will have to pay it. Or at least, mum will.
nobody thinks they should inherit debts though...
SpeckledJim said:
Arent unemployment benefits a gift from the government? Plenty of posts about that.
I know full well why comfortably-off, middle-class PH rails against inheritance tax. It is because they will have to pay it. Or at least, mum will.
nobody thinks they should inherit debts though...
Any secured debt has first charge against the estate they never lose out and rightly so. I know full well why comfortably-off, middle-class PH rails against inheritance tax. It is because they will have to pay it. Or at least, mum will.
nobody thinks they should inherit debts though...
Unsecured not sure but supposedly the credit card cos take out insurances to cover these liabilities to risk manage it away.
Jockman said:
Far too obvious to gain traction among many observers.
Is anyone aware how much tax the TRUSTS have paid during the late Duke's lifetime?
I may be wrong but if memory serves the trust paid around £50-60 million last year as well as employing an enormous number of Britons. It also kept what little London real estate hasn't been flogged to dirty money from Russia and the ME in British hands. I see no benefit to dissolving such a trust to satisfy the selfish greed of socialists who will only squander the proceeds anyway.Is anyone aware how much tax the TRUSTS have paid during the late Duke's lifetime?
I think this example highlights an interesting question. At what point does the freedom of tge individual stop trumping what's best for society? I think it's self-evident that entrenched wealth doesn't have a positive impact and when you're talking about nearly £10bn worth of assets being passed between people who haven't proven themselves to be right to make best economic use of them I'd argue society comes first.
djc206 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
IHT doesn't tax death, dead people can't pay tax. It taxes the beneficiaries of the estate.
Incorrect. The executor of the will is responsible for paying, the dead persons appointed living representative. Beneficiaries do not (normally) pay the tax.djc206 said:
I may be wrong but if memory serves the trust paid around £50-60 million last year as well as employing an enormous number of Britons. It also kept what little London real estate hasn't been flogged to dirty money from Russia and the ME in British hands. I see no benefit to dissolving such a trust to satisfy the selfish greed of socialists who will only squander the proceeds anyway.
This I the crux of it - and the biggest problem is Joe Public think due to be rich list he actually has £10b he doesn't he never will or if he does he'd lose half of it in taxes a one off upside to the govt v employment for thousands of good people UK owned assets by UK residents and UK people all taking the very longest term view. Sell the lot we'd all get £130 one off upside great... Big f
king deal. But where is the line when too much is too much? Who gets to decide? What is the criteria ? And what is the end game? Surely it's not for everyone to have £10b as if that were the case it would be no different to owning in today's money a £280k asset ...
Are we envious of someone who on paper might have £10b handed to him via trusts clearly are we envious of those lottery winners who don't pay a penny in tax on the winnings (not sure why that should be the case ditto gambling etc as all other forms of income is - just wish classic cars are and have been showing the signs of the start of Buy to let so it will be addressed at some point)
Randy Winkman said:
djc206 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
IHT doesn't tax death, dead people can't pay tax. It taxes the beneficiaries of the estate.
Incorrect. The executor of the will is responsible for paying, the dead persons appointed living representative. Beneficiaries do not (normally) pay the tax.If someone croaks it in the street you can't help yourself to the contents of their wallet on the basis that they no longer need it despite that being very true. It's still their money and theirs to decree not yours or the states to take.
djc206 said:
No it's not. The living person never had the money so can't lose it, the dead person did and therefore can. The fact that they no longer have a pulse is the pointless technicality, they are the one paying the tax.
If someone croaks it in the street you can't help yourself to the contents of their wallet on the basis that they no longer need it despite that being very true. It's still their money and theirs to decree not yours or the states to take.
Legally, you are wrong on a point or two. A dead person cannot possess anything. You cannot, for instance, steal from a dead person.If someone croaks it in the street you can't help yourself to the contents of their wallet on the basis that they no longer need it despite that being very true. It's still their money and theirs to decree not yours or the states to take.
djc206 said:
No it's not. The living person never had the money so can't lose it, the dead person did and therefore can. The fact that they no longer have a pulse is the pointless technicality, they are the one paying the tax.
If someone croaks it in the street you can't help yourself to the contents of their wallet on the basis that they no longer need it despite that being very true. It's still their money and theirs to decree not yours or the states to take.
Well the issue you can face is that the ITax bill is so high that the only way the kid or kids can fund it is to sell the family house which might have been a specific request in the will that they have and therefore never will. If someone croaks it in the street you can't help yourself to the contents of their wallet on the basis that they no longer need it despite that being very true. It's still their money and theirs to decree not yours or the states to take.
Anyway as long as you don't suffer sudden unexpected deaths you should have given away everything down to the IHT free threshold via gifting
You can even as parents have formal solicitor letters all witnessed if you give £X to Y person and say a gold digger comes along and divorced kid who's now much wealthier it's actually a loan which has to be taken into account in court divorce cases. Clearly if there is never an issue destroy the letter/contract as only the parent would have it and clearly following parents death the surviving kids would be cripplingly retarded to hand that over /they know it's to be burnt.
And yes I actually know of at least one person who has the above as a live situation - his wife has no knowledge and all being good never will.
Derek Smith said:
Legally, you are wrong on a point or two. A dead person cannot possess anything. You cannot, for instance, steal from a dead person.
Interesting. Would it still be classed as stealing? Would the report show the victim as the deceased's estate or the victims beneficiaries?djc206 said:
Derek Smith said:
Legally, you are wrong on a point or two. A dead person cannot possess anything. You cannot, for instance, steal from a dead person.
Interesting. Would it still be classed as stealing? Would the report show the victim as the deceased's estate or the victims beneficiaries?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff