I ask because it may have had a bearing on your reply to Marcos 6263’s post, that is all. If you don’t want to answer, fair enough.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Inheritance Tax
- Thread starter nicko31
- Start date
Precisely.
If I said I'd give you £100K, which you had never earned, but on condition you immediately gave me £40K back, who is going to say no?
60% of something is better than 100% of nothing!
I don’t mind answering; I don’t have kids. I do have a will and have beneficiaries though.
Another good point raised. You can make a gift without limit in the following circumstances:
If you make regular payments
You can make regular payments to another person, for example to help with their living costs. There’s no limit to how much you can give tax free, as long as:
- you can afford the payments after meeting your usual living costs
- you pay from your regular monthly income
- paying rent for your child
- paying into a savings account for a child under 18
- giving financial support to an elderly relative
For example, you can give your child a regular payment of £60 a month (a total of £720 a year) as well as using your annual exemption of £3,000 in the same tax year.
I think I know where you’re coming from. I just hope none of my beneficiaries cuss when they see me spending money.
Weststander
Well-known member
And it's even better than that. Currently.
The illustration I recall was an angry Telegraph contributor who stood to only inherit £800k, his sibling likewise, from his parents recent passing. A £2m estate.
WTF.
It really all comes down to the philosophical argument re ,’this is my dosh/wealth and I should be able to do what I like with it, rather than the Government of the day nicking some of it, and those who say, it is quite right that said Government should take a lob. The answer to all this is, as usual, a compromise. The question being, what is a fair level of taxation?
Last edited:
Haha, I would watch your back if I were you, they may be after you already.
Weststander
Well-known member
If it can be shown to almost directly lead to for example brand new social housing and affordable housing, spent efficiently, to me that would tick many of the philosophical boxes.
A mex eyecan
Well-known member
- Nov 3, 2011
- 3,886
If only eh. If only.
I think most reasonable people in the country would agree that we need more housing and especially ‘social and affordable’ housing, but, as ever, all the dosh goes into one big melting pot and realistically we have no say in what it gets spent on.
A caveat to my ‘most reasonable people’ statement is that in our neck of the West Sussex woods, Nimbyism is rife and I can see a few battles ahead.
PS. I have to laugh when I point out to some of the Nimbys who, themselves, have mainly moved into the area from elsewhere, that I used to ride my bike across what is now their living room, when I was a young lad.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,026
it's ideological and conceptual. the ideology is who's money is it, yours or the state's. if you think it's your money, why would accept government taking a slice just because? it was already taxed when earnt too.
the conceptual part is related, when you pass some money or asset between people, there is no value added, the economy did not grow, nothing productive happened. it will probably lead to something productive, that's another matter. generally we say it's ok for government to tax the productive, value adding actions because there's a surplus to tax. if you end up saying ok for government to tax the non-productive, non-value adding actions, they'll end up owning everything. then back to the ideological.
and there's an argument there is a surplus with inheritance, the surplus of someone's life's work, savings, investments, so fair game. but it's not really an economic surplus, not the result of something productive. falls into an awkward gray area. perhaps the consisent way would be to apply inheritance only on untaxed gains, i.e. house value. not cash, or unrealised assets that'll be taxed once sold.
chip
Well-known member
Are you my neighbour? I have objected to some planning applications in the past, mostly that the social housing is ghettoised or that afforable housing clearly isn't affordable. I also was part of the group that fought Tarmac's gravel extraction plans for sites that have previously been worked and "restored" in perpetuity. Housing really should be properly planned rather than chucked up in random blocks.I think most reasonable people in the country would agree that we need more housing and especially ‘social and affordable’ housing, but, as ever, all the dosh goes into one big melting pot and realistically we have no say in what it gets spent on.
A caveat to my ‘most reasonable people’ statement is that in our neck of the West Sussex woods, Nimbyism is rife and I can see a few battles ahead.
PS. I have to laugh when I point out to some of the Nimbys who, themselves, have mainly moved into the area from elsewhere, that I used to ride my bike across what is now their living room, when I was a young lad.
I think that they (Blair?) used the term hypothecated for taxes that served a specific purpose, haven't heard that phrase in a while. I don't think it worked.
Weststander
Well-known member
People always say that. But I know plenty of nurses, teachers, people from broken homes that are in affordables (not social) and they love it.
Often just another trope from nimbies who don't new homes anywhere near them.
chip
Well-known member
And often it is just shit design of new estates.
Most increase in house values, which I would say makes up much of the estates of those concerned, hasn't yet been taxed. It's not earnings as such, it's capital gains. So, if IHT was done away with, would we all end up paying CGT on the increase in value of the property instead?
Probably not your neighbour, but Chichester isn’t far away.
A mex eyecan
Well-known member
- Nov 3, 2011
- 3,886
It’s a battle and a half to get more people from either side of the ‘it’s mine, bugger off’ and the ‘tax anyone with more than me’ divisions to find some middle ground with this very hot chestnut.
Someone posted earlier about taxing anyone over a joint 1m pot. I think many people either side would agree that’s reasonable. Couple that with a graduated % payable depending on the estates value seems to my simplistic mind to also be quite reasonable consideration. A system similar to that along with Weststanders extremely sensible suggestion that taxes raised in this manner could only be used for the betterment of existing and building of new social housing, would transform housing stocks and the quantity of for decades and decades.
It could be hard to argue that’s not fair. Results of years of hard work building such an estate would still benefit your families. It would also benefit society in oh so many ways. If we assume ‘Ive earned it and want it to be of benefit’ argument is true. I could think of no finer thought that should I ever leave an estate worth a couple of million then my kids get a very reasonable inheritance and probably around 400k tax could probably provide a couple of decent homes for others outside my family. Laying on my death bed I’d feel quite chuffed to think that the results of my endeavours have helped so many.
Now, can you envisage any government agreeing that in turn for many millions of £’s IHT coming in that they will only ever use it for housing for the needy?.. dont hold your breath.
Someone posted earlier about taxing anyone over a joint 1m pot. I think many people either side would agree that’s reasonable. Couple that with a graduated % payable depending on the estates value seems to my simplistic mind to also be quite reasonable consideration. A system similar to that along with Weststanders extremely sensible suggestion that taxes raised in this manner could only be used for the betterment of existing and building of new social housing, would transform housing stocks and the quantity of for decades and decades.
It could be hard to argue that’s not fair. Results of years of hard work building such an estate would still benefit your families. It would also benefit society in oh so many ways. If we assume ‘Ive earned it and want it to be of benefit’ argument is true. I could think of no finer thought that should I ever leave an estate worth a couple of million then my kids get a very reasonable inheritance and probably around 400k tax could probably provide a couple of decent homes for others outside my family. Laying on my death bed I’d feel quite chuffed to think that the results of my endeavours have helped so many.
Now, can you envisage any government agreeing that in turn for many millions of £’s IHT coming in that they will only ever use it for housing for the needy?.. dont hold your breath.
Last edited:
A mex eyecan
Well-known member
- Nov 3, 2011
- 3,886
I do think that there’s been quite an improvement of late, not perfect no, but much better that many of earlier one where every box looked the same and were rammed into tightly you could hear the bloke 10 houses down snoring.
chip
Well-known member
You sound like Neil Kinnock. Not sure people's parentage is of any interest here.