Liz Truss Prime Minister
Discussion
motco said:
Today's Telegraph has figures that amount to c.12%
Telegraph nonsense, probably. Last official figure 2020/2021 is 3.73%.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/inheritan...
chrispmartha said:
Yep sorry you are correct.
However i believe its only a small percentage (less than 10%) of estates that pay it?
It is in effect a tax cut for the ‘rich’.
It's only a tax cut for the rich if the estates that pay it are actually those of the rich....However i believe its only a small percentage (less than 10%) of estates that pay it?
It is in effect a tax cut for the ‘rich’.
And also what we defines as "rich".
I'd also say it might be wise to look at the beneficiaries and their status.
IHT is readily avoided. I haven't seen any breakdowns, but I would bet it's not going to be the image of hoorays lording it up on champagne all the while that some quarters undoubtedly imagine they are who might benefit the most
Somebody on TV said that the cost of abolishing IHT was approximately similar to knocking 1% off income tax.
Why on earth are the Tories considering abolishing IHT if it isn't simply a sop to their rich mates?
As a lifelong Tory voter they've lost me. Time for change. Blame Boris and Truss (my MP, coincidentally) mostly, but they all need to be out now.
Why on earth are the Tories considering abolishing IHT if it isn't simply a sop to their rich mates?
As a lifelong Tory voter they've lost me. Time for change. Blame Boris and Truss (my MP, coincidentally) mostly, but they all need to be out now.
My late mother in law's estate attracted IHT and she was a widow of some years with only a state pension in a three bed semi in the Borough of Ealing which she and her late husband bought in 1938 for £800. Her cash assets were few as she'd been in a private nursing home for some years while her house was let to a housing association whose tenants wrecked the place. I find it hard to believe that her situation and others in the Home Counties being at the bottom end of the scale represents less than 4% of estates. To tax someone like her is shameful - she's hardly the owner of a massive estate of hundreds of acres the likes of whom were the intended target originally.
Rufus Stone said:
cirian75 said:
Talked to my father today
That big chunk her and Kwarteng spooking of the market caused.
Has resulted in a permanent 20% reduction in his pension income.
How so?That big chunk her and Kwarteng spooking of the market caused.
Has resulted in a permanent 20% reduction in his pension income.
motco said:
To tax someone like her is shameful - she's hardly the owner of a massive estate of hundreds of acres the likes of whom were the intended target originally.
Not singling you out, but I do think there is a huge issue with taxation. Everyone wants other people to pay more and think they themselves pay more than enough. If we think IHT is a good thing, then it needs to be on all estates. If it is bad, then no-one should pay.
AstonZagato said:
motco said:
To tax someone like her is shameful - she's hardly the owner of a massive estate of hundreds of acres the likes of whom were the intended target originally.
Not singling you out, but I do think there is a huge issue with taxation. Everyone wants other people to pay more and think they themselves pay more than enough. If we think IHT is a good thing, then it needs to be on all estates. If it is bad, then no-one should pay.
Carnegie who was, to put it mildly, no socialist thought it should be 100% IHT over a certain limit. Personally I have no problem with the idea so long as the Royals pay it too.
I think our problem in the UK is that for a long time we've been raised with the expectation that the state will look out for us, whereas (for at least a decade, probably many decades), it's actually out to consume us and offshore the profits.
Edited by glazbagun on Sunday 19th November 13:15
AstonZagato said:
motco said:
To tax someone like her is shameful - she's hardly the owner of a massive estate of hundreds of acres the likes of whom were the intended target originally.
Not singling you out, but I do think there is a huge issue with taxation. Everyone wants other people to pay more and think they themselves pay more than enough. If we think IHT is a good thing, then it needs to be on all estates. If it is bad, then no-one should pay.
Just about the fairest way would be to have a flat 5% paid by every estate over £500k, with deferred payment available for up to 5 years (to allow ordered liquidation of assets if required to pay the bill), index linked to CPI.
Keep the non-chargeable transfer to a spouse or civil partner (to eliminate evicting a spouse after a death to sell the house), get rid of the gifts allowance indexation (for simplicity) and charge it on the estate of everyone who has ever lived in the UK for more than 20 years (whether in one continuous go or in total).
And make it 15% on any residential property except the primary residence to raise a bit more and to help bring the housing market prices back down from the cloud cookoo land they're currently in.
youngsyr said:
And make it 15% on any residential property except the primary residence to raise a bit more and to help bring the housing market prices back down from the cloud cookoo land they're currently in.
LVT is the only thing which will touch the sides on the housing market, even then it needs combining with construction of housing on a scale not seen since the 1970s. S600BSB said:
I think IHT is fundamentally unfair and should be abolished. However, given the perilous state of the public finances, and the fact that it impacts such a tiny % of the population, it certainly wouldn’t be my priority.
As I've suggested, just make it 5% on all estates. Hard to argue that would be unfair.motco said:
My late mother in law's estate attracted IHT and she was a widow of some years with only a state pension in a three bed semi in the Borough of Ealing which she and her late husband bought in 1938 for £800. Her cash assets were few as she'd been in a private nursing home for some years while her house was let to a housing association whose tenants wrecked the place. I find it hard to believe that her situation and others in the Home Counties being at the bottom end of the scale represents less than 4% of estates. To tax someone like her is shameful - she's hardly the owner of a massive estate of hundreds of acres the likes of whom were the intended target originally.
What was the value of the property?Killboy said:
motco said:
My late mother in law's estate attracted IHT and she was a widow of some years with only a state pension in a three bed semi in the Borough of Ealing which she and her late husband bought in 1938 for £800. Her cash assets were few as she'd been in a private nursing home for some years while her house was let to a housing association whose tenants wrecked the place. I find it hard to believe that her situation and others in the Home Counties being at the bottom end of the scale represents less than 4% of estates. To tax someone like her is shameful - she's hardly the owner of a massive estate of hundreds of acres the likes of whom were the intended target originally.
What was the value of the property?S600BSB said:
I think IHT is fundamentally unfair and should be abolished. However, given the perilous state of the public finances, and the fact that it impacts such a tiny % of the population, it certainly wouldn’t be my priority.
Retention of intergenerational wealth is immoral, does the Duke of Westminster deserve to be born a billionaire?A woman was completing an arts degree as a mature student at a UK university. For her dissertation she focused on a particular artist. She noted that one particular painting had been largely ignored and decided to focus on it. It was kept 'for the nation', so not included in IHT (surely IT?) of the estate of the owner when he snuffed it some years before.
She approached her tutor who told her the painting had been sold. She mentioned it belonged to the nation, he said get real. She persevered. After a request to view she was given the run-around. She changed picture for her dissertation but persisted with the requests to view. Obstructed.
According to her tutor, it was the 'norm'. He reckoned that a common trick is to duplicate the painting, sell the real one, and display the fake.
Obviously not first hand info, just from a friend. But then, even her info was not first hand as she was unable to see the thing which, it seems, has been cherished by the estate, looked after so fastidiously that they let no one see it in case they contaminate it somehow.
She approached her tutor who told her the painting had been sold. She mentioned it belonged to the nation, he said get real. She persevered. After a request to view she was given the run-around. She changed picture for her dissertation but persisted with the requests to view. Obstructed.
According to her tutor, it was the 'norm'. He reckoned that a common trick is to duplicate the painting, sell the real one, and display the fake.
Obviously not first hand info, just from a friend. But then, even her info was not first hand as she was unable to see the thing which, it seems, has been cherished by the estate, looked after so fastidiously that they let no one see it in case they contaminate it somehow.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff