[Politics] Inheritance Tax

[nicko31]

Proper levelling up could be on its way..

Labour plot to slash inheritance tax bands by staggering £350,000 per family

PM Keir Starmer and chancellor Rachel Reeves are being urged to scrap a hugely popular tax break in a move that could cost families up to £140,000.

www.express.co.uk

 

[Weststander]

Proper levelling up could be on its way..

Labour plot to slash inheritance tax bands by staggering £350,000 per family

PM Keir Starmer and chancellor Rachel Reeves are being urged to scrap a hugely popular tax break in a move that could cost families up to £140,000.

www.express.co.uk

Already mentioned in the Labour Meltdown thread. Left wing think tank ideas are being exaggerated as Reeves policies in the newspapers.

Levelling up? Literally, than can only be the case if additional tax raised finds its way to the poor, homeless and people unable to find security in an affordable home.

If lost in the tax and spend ether and not to those groups, it hasn’t levelled up.

 

[Napper]

If you’ve got over 500k to pass on then you can afford it

 

[Pavilionaire]

If these stories are to believed then Labour will also have to do something about Trusts.

Before Osborne introduced the £175,000 Residence Nil Rate Band, people were putting assets into Trust precisely to help pass on the family home on second death. The £175K RNRB effectively killed that loophole, and so was warmly received at the time.

The government need to get away from taxing the Estate of the dead to taxing the newly-acquired income / assets of the living beneficiaries.

 

[Weststander]

Proper levelling up could be on its way..

Labour plot to slash inheritance tax bands by staggering £350,000 per family

PM Keir Starmer and chancellor Rachel Reeves are being urged to scrap a hugely popular tax break in a move that could cost families up to £140,000.

www.express.co.uk

If these stories are to believed then Labour will also have to do something about Trusts.

Before Osborne introduced the £175,000 Residence Nil Rate Band, people were putting assets into Trust precisely to help pass on the family home on second death. The £175K RNRB effectively killed that loophole, and so was warmly received at the time.

The government need to get away from taxing the Estate of the dead to taxing the newly-acquired income / assets of the living beneficiaries.

NSC folk of the 'left' and right have boasted about the use of trusts to avoid IHT.

 

[beorhthelm]

If these stories are to believed then Labour will also have to do something about Trusts.

Before Osborne introduced the £175,000 Residence Nil Rate Band, people were putting assets into Trust precisely to help pass on the family home on second death. The £175K RNRB effectively killed that loophole, and so was warmly received at the time.

The government need to get away from taxing the Estate of the dead to taxing the newly-acquired income / assets of the living beneficiaries.

daftly some people would rather keep IHT on principle, rather than get rid and tax the recipients. even if it means more tax and fewer loopholes.

 

[BLOCK F]

NSC folk of the 'left' and right have boasted about the use of trusts to avoid IHT.

You beat me to it.
True to NSC form, there has been more than a wee bit of virtuous. believing/saying one thing, but in real life and away from the keyboard, you can bet they are planning the exact opposite!

 

[Weststander]

You beat me to it.
True to NSC form, there has been more than a wee bit of virtuous. believing/saying one thing, but in real life and away from the keyboard, you can bet they are planning the exact opposite!

There is a word "hypocrites".

 

[Machiavelli]

NSC folk of the 'left' and right have boasted about the use of trusts to avoid IHT.

It's all perfectly legal, so I don't have a problem with it. I learnt yesterday that pensions are immune from IHT so, by the same logic, that's fine. Isn't the question, rather, whether you support the tightening up of loopholes so the revenue can raise more from IHT, or not? After all, I'm also of the view that any government need to be honest and either raise taxes or cut spending. Raising taxes opens up the question of which ones, and the widely mooted CGT and IHT are preferable for me. Cutting spending opens up the question of what will be cut -- WFA hasn't exactly gone too well on this front -- and, again, if we're to be honest there are some parts of public spending that have grown enormously and become a far larger slice of the % share, eg pensions, healthcare.

 

[Machiavelli]

Another way of saying this is that I'm more interested in policy/politics than morality (largely because the former creates the framework for the latter).

 

[Triggaaar]

Already mentioned in the Labour Meltdown thread. Left wing think tank ideas are being exaggerated as Reeves policies in the newspapers.

Levelling up? Literally, than can only be the case if additional tax raised finds its way to the poor, homeless and people unable to find security in an affordable home.

If lost in the tax and spend ether and not to those groups, it hasn’t levelled up.

It is levelling, just down rather than up.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

This will be levelling down not up.

 

[Triggaaar]

daftly some people would rather keep IHT on principle, rather than get rid and tax the recipients. even if it means more tax and fewer loopholes.

How would you tax the recipients?

 

[dazzer6666]

How would you tax the recipients?

Yep…….easy to determine IHT on the estate as all goes through probate. The admin needed to trace and tax distributions would be immense in relative terms and a lot would escape.

 

[Machiavelli]

How would you tax the recipients?

Progressively, would be my answer. I often don't agree with @beorhthelm but have no problem with shifting the taxation from IHT to the recipient, especially if it entails the tightening of loopholes so it's more transparent.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yep…….easy to determine IHT on the estate as all goes through probate. The admin needed to trace and tax distributions would be immense in relative terms and a lot would escape.

How would taxing the recipients remove the necessity of probate?

 

[amexer]

who is it best to get advice on inheritence from accountant or solicitor

 

[Weststander]

Yep…….easy to determine IHT on the estate as all goes through probate. The admin needed to trace and tax distributions would be immense in relative terms and a lot would escape.

My thoughts exactly. Solicitors or similar literally must pay over the IHT in good time, much to the anger of beneficiaries where I come across through work.

Easy tax to collect, almost impossible to defraud the public purse at that stage.

 

[Weststander]

who is it best to get advice on inheritence from accountant or solicitor

Solicitor who's an expert in the area.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

Solicitor who's an expert in the area.

Who will be very popular if and when Labour reduce allowances.
The thought of my dear old mum’s hard earned money that she has already been taxed getting spread across everyone in the U.K. will have her turning in her grave.