Tories review inheritance taxes

Former Member

link

Yet more Tory promises of tax cuts which of course would mean less in services i presume. Apparantly it is still only a small proportion of the population that is effected by this tax, i.e. the rich. Are the tories just claimining they'll cut the riches taxes?

Or is this just an attempt to grab a few votes? 'The tax-cutting plans have been described as targets rather than promises'

Former Member

Considering the value of houses these days it's not difficult to have an estate worth more than 1m

Former Member

It's easy to condemn it, until you realise you have to see the family home to pay the tax bill.

Inheritance tax is immoral anyway.

Former Member

I dunno, not totally, the same arguments could be drawn from income tax.

Personally I think it sucks you can't sell a house to clear the tax debt.

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Personally I think it sucks you can't sell a house to clear the tax debt.

You can, and have to. The estate's assets pay for the inheritance tax, and if the estate's assets have to be sold to do thsi then so be it.

Former Member

I didn't think you were allowed to.

Former Member

inheritance tax is fair and unfair, its unfair a person cant give to their kid when they die

but its fair that for the stupidly rich, when they die, some of their money gets taken, and gets redistributed, when to all intensive purposes, the child hasnt earnt that level of wealth

i just think the current threshold is far too low, and it should be progrssive, like above £300k its only 10% or something, and works its way up to about 50 or 60% by the time the person is a multimillionaire

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
I didn't think you were allowed to.

I might be wrong, I don't know all that much about taxation to be quite honest.

But don't forget that it is the ESTATE that is taxed, not the beneficiaries.

Former Member

absolutly. Doesn't mean it's not me landed with dealing with the bill though

Former Member

yeh the property needs to be sold if all the estate is in objects, not money


howd you think the government got so much artwork for museum, the former upper classes of this country of course whom were the intedned targets when this tax was introduced!

Former Member

Originally posted by Kermit
Inheritance tax is immoral anyway.

I disagree. Surely it is the fairest tax of all. The recipients of inheritance have done nothing to 'deserve' it, so why do they have a right to keep money that their relatives have earned?

It is unfair on aristocratic families who have estates and stately homes to maintain, but then again, why should they be allowed to live off the success of distant anscestors?

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
I disagree. Surely it is the fairest tax of all. The recipients of inheritance have done nothing to 'deserve' it, so why do they have a right to keep money that their relatives have earned?

It is unfair on aristocratic families who have estates and stately homes to maintain, but then again, why should they be allowed to live off the SUCESS of distant anscestors?

replace 'success' by tyranny........

Former Member

But why not? I hope to earn shit loads then leave it all to my lovely neices and nephews in my minion army. At some point I'll be a distant ancestor, but it doesn't change the reasons behind it.

Former Member

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
replace 'success' by tyranny........

If you removed that grin from the end, you'd have a valid point.

ps when you quote me, please don't edit the quote and add a typo (SUCESS) :rolleyes: I have standards to maintain

Former Member

I think I'm going to like you.

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
But why not? I hope to earn shit loads then leave it all to my lovely neices and nephews in my minion army. At some point I'll be a distant ancestor, but it doesn't change the reasons behind it.

the problem is difference between fairn giving and excesses


like bill gates for example, his kids, will never ever have to work in their lifetimes, so theyll be living off unearned income, if he left em enough money to set up a business have a nice big house etc etc fine but $50 billion, i dont need that

even if that aint uK it jsut an example of above that point

Former Member

Well, really what difference does it make? To be fair a lot of people never have to work again, and neither do their kids. But quite frankly it's boring, so they get a job anyway or do something

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Well, really what difference does it make? To be fair a lot of people never have to work again, and neither do their kids. But quite frankly it's boring, so they get a job anyway or do something

Some people don't have to work any more because they have earned enough to live comfortably. Other people don't have to work because they have inherited or otherwise come into money (eg Lotto) through no effort of their own. I have different attitudes to the two groups.

Inheritance is a bonus that cannot be relied on as a source of income or fundamental right. Of course it's not pleasant to have to talk about money when someone close has died, but the principle of inheritance tax is wholly fair imho.

Whether they get bored and get a job is not really relevant.

Former Member

I don't have a problem with inheritance tax. The suggest by placebo is that there should be a cap on the actual amount of inheritance that can be given by a person upon their death.

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
I don't have a problem with inheritance tax. The suggest by placebo is that there should be a cap on the actual amount of inheritance that can be given by a person upon their death.

thats why a progressive inheritance tax starting from the average middle class up starting low and getting higheris fair, as at the end result, most offspring will get a fair share

i think about the first 400k should be tax free, then works its way upwards, after that point

everyone gets a more equal start that way, thats my purpose for inheritance tax

Former Member

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
thats why a progressive inheritance tax starting from the average middle class up starting low and getting higheris fair, as at the end result, most offspring will get a fair share

i think about the first 400k should be tax free, then works its way upwards, after that point

everyone gets a more equal start that way, thats my purpose for inheritance tax

I don't think I quite understand your system or how it is different from the status quo.
400k cf. 263k?

Former Member

well yeh where have i said differently, i want the threshold to rise, and instead of starting at 40%, start it at 10 or 15% then go up, like income tax does

Former Member

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
i want the threshold to rise, and instead of starting at 40%, start it at 10 or 15% then go up, like income tax does

I see the idea, just not sure what the advantage is. Yours is a more complicated system, but it simply means less revenue for the taxman.

If people want to leave money to relatives, they have a whole lifetime to do so.

Former Member

well ge tthe lazy rich people then

and it might give less to the taxman, but its fairer, it aint that complicated, just like income tax, and it gets the richer people

inheritance is firstly there to take and redistrubute wealth from the to-be rich, to everyone

any money left in will to charity, or schools or hospitals etc shouldnt be counted

Former Member

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
inheritance is firstly there to take and redistrubute wealth from the to-be rich, to everyone

But it isn't! Poor people living in council/housing association property probably don't have any assets let alone £400,000 so wherever you put the threshold, inheritance tax only benefits those with money to inherit regardless of the amount.

If your goal is wealth redistribution, you should tax inheritance at 100%. Not a vote-winner though!

Former Member

*Awaits LabRat's views on inheritance tax with great anticipation*

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
But it isn't! Poor people living in council/housing association property probably don't have any assets let alone £400,000 so wherever you put the threshold, inheritance tax only benefits those with money to inherit regardless of the amount.

If your goal is wealth redistribution, you should tax inheritance at 100%. Not a vote-winner though!

well the revenue raised from people who do own enough assets to have inheritance tax on them, can be used to help everyone as a whole...

and have a threshold system, means a lot is tax free still, so it acts like a cap meaning people still have lots left over

here a quick example

current system is 40% over £263k
so if the estate is worth £283k
its 40% of £20k so they only pay £8000 in heritance tax

whilst someone who has a huge estate worth £10,263,000 pays 40% of £10 million, so £4million

leaving them with £6,263,000

i wouldnt want 100% in principle, cause we aint in a communist system, people look after thier families and whoever they want as well the whole of the nation

Former Member

Inheritance tax is plain and simple theft. Seeing has somebody has already paid income tax on their earnings, VAT on their belongings and stamp duty on their house it is outrageous to levy additional tax when they die. It’s the equivalent of grave-robbing.

The Tories are absolutely right.

Former Member

Originally posted by Aladdin
*Awaits LabRat's views on inheritance tax with great anticipation*

Looting graves is not fairer than picking pockets of live people. What the sense to work and save if my money won’t get to my kids but will be grabbed by greedy aladdins to work against them?