If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
There are various tax implications of giving too much away to your family, so you cant get round it.
there are lots of ways around it, i mean my girlfriends grandfather has already signed over his house and his flat to her to avoid paying tax on it,
Without being disrespectful if he dies soon then the tax still comes into force, I think its 6 years.
i think its about 7 years, but that only counts if it is given as a gift, not if they where "Sold" for a token amount.
We all know that this government uses the civil service as a way of effectively buying votes anyway. It hires countless people before telling lies about how they'd all be sacked under the Tories, thus buying a load of votes for Labour in the process, because people don't like being sacked, do they? You're telling me that the state isn't in debt either? Do you remember that moron who used to inhabit the Treasury between 1997 and 2007? He used to come out with these misleading budgets where every single time, he was borrowing money. (i.e. getting this country further and further into debt through his incompetence) He was never really found out, hence why Gordon Brown is now the Prime Minister.
So spending money to stop people dying is a bad idea?
Any proof that Labour are buying votes with jobs?
Any actual opinion on the topic in question?
Nah - nice try but that's not true (or everybody will be doing it). The IR works out what she paid against the value of the house and she will be taxed on what they perceive to be her untaxed profit.
Exactly - however, it can be signed over as a gift and tax won't be paid if 7 years passes..
(2) Well, I can't help but notice that most new state sector jobs are in the north, and particularly in areas where they tend to vote Labour. I'm sure that's all just a coincidence, of course.
(3) You must have missed it - I forgive you in your old age for being forgetful - so I'll say it again. I'm all in favour of scrapping inheritance tax.
Or of course when she comes to sell her profit margin will be massive and capital gains will kick in.
1 - You said they were useless jobs, personally I think stopping someone smoking is a good job which will actually save money. Its not a distraction at all, you stated they were useless.
2- I've said before on here that I am concered about the possible dependance in parts of the UK on government jobs, but that isnt really anything to do with buying votes, the north has consistantly been a Labour strong hold since the early days of unions. The reason for those jobs is largely the areas of the Uk with the biggest problems get the biggest amount of government funding, unless you want to reverse that trend.
3 - Why? Is it fair for people to inherit money they havent worked for?
And where does this fit in with the capitalist ideal of the economy as a whole benefitting as a result of people's hard work and desire for wealth, if a fair number of people just have wealth handed to them on a plate? Why shouldn't they hae to earn their money like everyone else?
I don't believe you pay tax on profit on the sale of your primary residence?
Territ said there were two properties, didnt he?
Did he? Bah - I am just as guilty as him as not reading the thread properly! Sorry, Budda. Serves me right for trying to participate AND work at the same time ... :banghead:
In which case, you are 100% correct (again).
I would and probably will, but arguing against tax on inheritance OVER £300K is crazy, thats a massive amount of money.
Exactly. Arguing for an abolition in inheritance tax is the polar opposite position of arguing for an abolition of inheritance altogether. There's quite a large middle-ground there filled by tax. I would be quite happy to pay tax on any amount of unearned inheritance ("happy" might be the wrong word, but I would accept it as fair). Surely in a capatilist society, there's more of an argument for the abolition of tax on earned income, than there is for the abolition of tax on unearned income like inheritance? Not that I'm suggesting that of course.
If you believe inheritance to be inherently unfair, would you advocate the abolition of any tax free inheritance? Or perhaps scrap the notion of inheritance altogether?
I'm not sure looking at inheritance in terms of fairness is helpful, or even particularly sensible.
What do you look at it in terms of then? Benefits to society? If you'd like to venture some, feel free.
I dont think inheritance is fair, it continues the large disparities in wealth in our society which cause problems. But, I'm a realist so I think there should be a level at which tax kicks in and £300K is generous really, though of course it should move with general inflation.
Inheritance tax isn't a subject I'm particularly au fait with, but it seems to me the very first question that should be asked is 'Does the government have any right to it at all?'.
I appreciate the sentiment behind inheritance tax, as particularly do, i suspect, the socialists among us. The problem I have is that tax is such prolific phenomenon and we largely just accept that it's right for tax to be applied where it appears. The distribution of wealth, one hopes at least, would make society better off as a whole, but that doesn't really make it synonymous with fairness, or even remotely right.
That is a valid point, the tax system as it presently stands is a bad joke, its been made far too complicated on the basis of conning the public and making work for Revenue and Customs. NI and general taxation should be merged, there is absolutely no reason for them to be seperate for example, but everyone knows if you merge them it will look like the tax is going up, so it wont happen.
I suppose that goes back to what sort of society we want, if we want something meritocratic then inheritance tax is a good leveler.
I agree. Though I don't think a meritocratic society is necessarily a fair one.
No, and although I think it is a nobel ideal it shouldnt mean that those at the bottom are left to rot there, which is what you see in the US, even though of course the US is actually even further from meritocratic than we are, they just like to talk about the American Dream and all that.
Indeed, VAT is a tax which is paid out of taxed income, so you could argue that that should go too.
Although to my mind the fairest form of tax would be purely on products, the needed ones taxed very lightly and the un-needed highly, that way the rich would pay a fairer amount of their money to the government. But of course this wouldnt ever work because it would foster a huge black market.
I'm not sure i agree. I don't think all taxes are equally valid, or that any one tax necessarily justifies another. Road tax, for instance, doesn't all get spent of roads - in fact i think only 15% of road tax gets spent or roads and road related projects; road tax is fallacious. It is used as a deceptive means of ostensibly keeping other taxes low.