Quote:
Thats OK if you are the only beneficiaries. If there are 3 kids for example then the £285k gets split 3 ways and then the rest of the estate gets taxed 40% and then split another 3 ways. Its not quite as rosy as you are making out.Originally Posted by The Snug Rhino
bottom line is that a married couple get £600k in allowance as of april - you are NEVER going to get a tax changed when it doesnt affect those with less than that amount...as thats a LOT of people!
If an estate was worth £1m and going to 3 kids then take off the £285k and split it 3 ways they each get £95k each tax free. Then the rest of the £1m minus the £285k = £715k x 60% (after the Governments 40% tax) = £429k. Divide that 3 ways so each kid gets £143k. The Government gets £286k for nothing and the 3 kids get an accumlated 95k + £143k = £238k each after tax so they actually each get less than the Government gets out of the estate. If there was no IHT they would have got £333k each so they have each paid £95k tax. That is daylight robbery.
Scooby Regular
It used to be a given that you were allowed, as kids, to inherit the family home. To all you green eyed monsters out there, the fact that nowadays you will probably have to sell that house to pay the tax on it is probably a good thing. To the rest of us, and most of the rest of the world, that is a bit unfair and punitive. A grave tax as someone said. [The people that leave basic £300k 3 bed semis have paid tax and NI all their lives FFS...]
This is especially punitivbe for most of us 'kids' trying to keep up repayments on our massive over-inflated house prices. I can barely keep up with the interest, let alone the capital repayments; cue heart and bleed

The government call it the lack of index-linking windfall or something. It is NO LONGER a richtax. It stinks...
D
This is especially punitivbe for most of us 'kids' trying to keep up repayments on our massive over-inflated house prices. I can barely keep up with the interest, let alone the capital repayments; cue heart and bleed


The government call it the lack of index-linking windfall or something. It is NO LONGER a richtax. It stinks...
D
Scooby Regular
Quote:
Originally Posted by **************
That is daylight robbery.
Its also very rare - MOST people in a £1m estate are married couples hence have TWO nil rate bands not one and MOST people in a £1m estate would do some IHT planning to lower the liability.
While the scenario you suggest does happen....it doesn't happen enough to make anyone change the rules. None of my clients regard IHT as "robbery" - they all plan for it and reduce it to a libility they feel represents a fair taxation on their estate. A married couple in a £1m estate would expect to end up loosing between 5-15% of their estate in IHT with some simple planning.....they may rather they paid nothing but, being realistic, its not all that bad either.
Scooby Regular
Quote:
and if thats all they left they would pay no IHT.Originally Posted by Diesel
The people that leave basic £300k 3 bed semis have paid tax and NI all their lives FFS
Scooby Regular
I think the tax is wrong in principle, like the other taxes in the pipeline and also many of those wich have gone before.
Les
Les
Quote:
This bit still confuses me as are you saying the tax is applicable per person? As I understand it its based on the estate no matter how many people are getting the inheritance. ie the estate gets taxed 40% above £285k before it is shared out not the estate is split down to each inheritee and then they pay 40% on anything they each get above £285k.Originally Posted by The Snug Rhino
Its also very rare - MOST people in a £1m estate are married couples hence have TWO nil rate bands not one
If you are referring to the fact that if there are two people in a relationship they will both get upto £285k tax free from their respective parents/relatives thats an irrelavant point in my opinion as its two seperate estates so the Government is getting two lots of tax for nothing, they both still end up with a lot less than they would if IHT was abolished.
Scooby Senior
IHT is fair. The levels are questionable.
To those who say that you are paying tax on savings already taxed are talking rubbish.
My dad dies, leaves £xxxk pounds to me. I pay £xxxk IHT on money I have not earned or saved or paid tax on before. It is new income to me, therefore I am taxed on it.
I do agree it's time the govt looked at upping the levels though.
Geezer
To those who say that you are paying tax on savings already taxed are talking rubbish.
My dad dies, leaves £xxxk pounds to me. I pay £xxxk IHT on money I have not earned or saved or paid tax on before. It is new income to me, therefore I am taxed on it.
I do agree it's time the govt looked at upping the levels though.
Geezer
Scooby Regular
Quote:
Is it not £285k on the total estate rather than per person owning a share in that estate? Ehh?Originally Posted by The Snug Rhino
and if thats all they left they would pay no IHT.
Scooby Regular
If you took your £1m Estate, which is owned by the parents who suffer death whilst on holiday.
The following would be the case providing the correct planning has been put in place.
Statistically husband dies first so deduct his nil rate band (£285k), so the wife is left with the remaining Estate of £715k (still with the ability to access the other £285k if required) No tax to pay at this stage due to Spouse exemption
On her subsequent death her Estate less her nil rate band would leave a taxable Estate of £430k and @ 40% the 3 children would inherite a tax charge of £172k but also inherite £828k.
Not bad just for being born to the right parents.
The following would be the case providing the correct planning has been put in place.
Statistically husband dies first so deduct his nil rate band (£285k), so the wife is left with the remaining Estate of £715k (still with the ability to access the other £285k if required) No tax to pay at this stage due to Spouse exemption
On her subsequent death her Estate less her nil rate band would leave a taxable Estate of £430k and @ 40% the 3 children would inherite a tax charge of £172k but also inherite £828k.
Not bad just for being born to the right parents.
Scooby Regular
Quote:
Exactly! Ignoring what the ex-owner paid etc., the recipient has paid f'all for it, it's free money. Originally Posted by Bluie
Not bad just for being born to the right parents.

Quote:
No, I think you are talking rubbish. If my parents have put earnings away which they then live off and leave the rest of what they don't need to their kids then that money has already been taxed once by the Government. It was taxed with income tax. To then tax that same money again another 40% when its given to the children of the people who earnt it is taxing the same money twice. Why some on this thread can't understand that is beyond me.Originally Posted by Geezer
To those who say that you are paying tax on savings already taxed are talking rubbish.Geezer
Scooby Senior
Quote:
Your obviously having a bit of trouble understanding how taxation works.Originally Posted by **************
No, I think you are talking rubbish. If my parents have put earnings away which they then live off and leave the rest of what they don't need to their kids then that money has already been taxed once by the Government. It was taxed with income tax. To then tax that same money again another 40% when its given to the children of the people who earnt it is taxing the same money twice. Why some on this thread can't understand that is beyond me.
If someone gives you money, it is income. It doesn't matter what the source is. Your employer makes money. They pay tax. What is left is profit. They pay you. Are you saying you should not be taxed because your employer is giving you money which it has already paid tax on?
It really isn't that difficult.
It's like saying you shouldn't pay VAT on goods because you have been taxed once already!
Geezer
Scooby Regular
It's like saying you shouldn't pay VAT on goods because you have been taxed once already!
Interesting that will be the next petition from some people.
Why is it that just because I can spend £10,000 on product A and the chap next to me can only spend £1,000 on product Aa do I have to pay so much more VAT. The products are the same do the same thing, albeit Product A does it better, faster and quieter than product Aa.
So we have a Luxury tax where by I have to pay £1,750 and the chap next to me on £175.
I'd suggest that those that do not like the tax rules in the UK move elsewhere as there is F**k All you will be able to do about it.
It makes no difference which colour of Government is in power they all have the same amount of cloth to play with, although some like to introduce stealth taxation rather than be honest with the voting, paying public
Interesting that will be the next petition from some people.
Why is it that just because I can spend £10,000 on product A and the chap next to me can only spend £1,000 on product Aa do I have to pay so much more VAT. The products are the same do the same thing, albeit Product A does it better, faster and quieter than product Aa.
So we have a Luxury tax where by I have to pay £1,750 and the chap next to me on £175.
I'd suggest that those that do not like the tax rules in the UK move elsewhere as there is F**k All you will be able to do about it.
It makes no difference which colour of Government is in power they all have the same amount of cloth to play with, although some like to introduce stealth taxation rather than be honest with the voting, paying public
SN Fairy Godmother
Employers are taxed on profits after wages paid out are deducted, not wages paid out of taxable profits.
I can see where B2Z is coming from. What I chose to do with my money after it has been taxed is up to me. So, I invest in a house and various other forms of savings. I pop my clogs and leave it all to my kids. Mr tax man comes along and wants a cut. Why. It is a form of taxing twice. And yes, there is nowt I can do about it, so ho hum
I can see where B2Z is coming from. What I chose to do with my money after it has been taxed is up to me. So, I invest in a house and various other forms of savings. I pop my clogs and leave it all to my kids. Mr tax man comes along and wants a cut. Why. It is a form of taxing twice. And yes, there is nowt I can do about it, so ho hum

Scooby Regular
Quote:
I can see where B2Z is coming from. What I chose to do with my money after it has been taxed is up to me. So, I invest in a house and various other forms of savings. I pop my clogs and leave it all to my kids. Mr tax man comes along and wants a cut. Why. It is a form of taxing twice. And yes, there is nowt I can do about it, so ho hum
There are things that you can do to ensure that the family wealth is preserved as it passes down the generations, just take suitable advice.Originally Posted by 84of300
Employers are taxed on profits after wages paid out are deducted, not wages paid out of taxable profits.I can see where B2Z is coming from. What I chose to do with my money after it has been taxed is up to me. So, I invest in a house and various other forms of savings. I pop my clogs and leave it all to my kids. Mr tax man comes along and wants a cut. Why. It is a form of taxing twice. And yes, there is nowt I can do about it, so ho hum
Most taxes are double taxation VAT, IHT, CGT, Stamp Duty etc, you can follow the trail and see that money that has been used initially has already been taxed, however the IR will hide behind Tax on income and Tax on assets.
Quote:
If someone gives you money, it is income. It doesn't matter what the source is. Your employer makes money. They pay tax. What is left is profit. They pay you. Are you saying you should not be taxed because your employer is giving you money which it has already paid tax on?
It really isn't that difficult.
It's like saying you shouldn't pay VAT on goods because you have been taxed once already!
Geezer
You're obviously having a bit of trouble understanding the difference between paying tax on money you have earnt through employment or tax that is paid for services and goods purchased and money that is inherited as a gift due to you being immediate family and not through the course of any commercial activity. If parents decide to give their kids money or their house that is no business of the Government.Originally Posted by Geezer
Your obviously having a bit of trouble understanding how taxation works.If someone gives you money, it is income. It doesn't matter what the source is. Your employer makes money. They pay tax. What is left is profit. They pay you. Are you saying you should not be taxed because your employer is giving you money which it has already paid tax on?
It really isn't that difficult.
It's like saying you shouldn't pay VAT on goods because you have been taxed once already!
Geezer
Quote:
Most taxes are double taxation VAT, IHT, CGT, Stamp Duty etc, you can follow the trail and see that money that has been used initially has already been taxed, however the IR will hide behind Tax on income and Tax on assets.
You're just not getting it are you, the difference is tax paid on commercial activity and tax being paid on private funds already subjected to income tax that changes hands through no commercial activity between family.Originally Posted by Bluie
There are things that you can do to ensure that the family wealth is preserved as it passes down the generations, just take suitable advice.Most taxes are double taxation VAT, IHT, CGT, Stamp Duty etc, you can follow the trail and see that money that has been used initially has already been taxed, however the IR will hide behind Tax on income and Tax on assets.
SN Fairy Godmother
Quote:
Most taxes are double taxation VAT, IHT, CGT, Stamp Duty etc, you can follow the trail and see that money that has been used initially has already been taxed, however the IR will hide behind Tax on income and Tax on assets.
Originally Posted by Bluie
There are things that you can do to ensure that the family wealth is preserved as it passes down the generations, just take suitable advice.Most taxes are double taxation VAT, IHT, CGT, Stamp Duty etc, you can follow the trail and see that money that has been used initially has already been taxed, however the IR will hide behind Tax on income and Tax on assets.
After reading this thread, I am definately going to get a financial wizard on the case

Scooby Regular
Quote:
If you read your post and compare what I had said you will see it is infact one and the same.Originally Posted by **************
You're just not getting it are you, the difference is tax paid on commercial activity and tax being paid on private funds already subjected to income tax that changes hands through no commercial activity between family.
No its not because you are saying IHT is just the same as VAT, CGT and Stamp Duty. IHT is taxation on no commercial activity but a private transfer of assets within a family. All the others involve the selling and purchasing of goods or services and therefore deemed commercial activity.
Scooby Regular
Quote:
What I was referring to is that most taxes are double taxation whether commercial or not.Originally Posted by **************
No its not because you are saying IHT is just the same as VAT, CGT and Stamp Duty. IHT is taxation on no commercial activity but a private transfer of assets within a family. All the others involve the selling and purchasing of goods or services and therefore deemed commercial activity.
Just pray they do not bring back Super Tax.
Scooby Regular
LOL it's risible when I hear people saying that people whose property is valued at £285k or whatever it is, are not rich. Bull****. Try asking those trapped in the rental market who'll never save the deposit needed for a mortgage or can't get the credit, and have no likelihood of owning even the tiniest home for themselves.
I agree with the inheritance tax. It's probably the only thing left that will keep property prices reigned in, and bearing any resemblance to what people actually earn. It's also bull**** to say it's unfair because it hasn't risen in line with house prices. Tough **** I say - if you've ridden the wave of huge rises in the value of your home I bet you're not complaining now... take the rough with the smooth.
I agree with the inheritance tax. It's probably the only thing left that will keep property prices reigned in, and bearing any resemblance to what people actually earn. It's also bull**** to say it's unfair because it hasn't risen in line with house prices. Tough **** I say - if you've ridden the wave of huge rises in the value of your home I bet you're not complaining now... take the rough with the smooth.
Quote:
Just pray they do not bring back Super Tax.
I don't know of any other tax that is tax on non commercial activity, there is only IHT that is a tax on personal asset transfer and there is no justification for it. Transfer of assets between family members is a family and private matter and is not income. The Government should keep their grave robbing thieving hands off.Originally Posted by Bluie
What I was referring to is that most taxes are double taxation whether commercial or not.Just pray they do not bring back Super Tax.
Scooby Regular
Quote:
Since when? Some form of death duties has been in existence since Roman times...its not like Tony thought of this in 2004!Originally Posted by **************
The Government should keep their grave robbing thieving hands off.
The only reason its an issue now is house prices.....which for most people is the largest asset they have on which they have made the largest gain...tax FREE! Would you rather primary residence relief was done away with instead?
And the reason its a problem now is because everyone moans and doesn't act.....how many of those complaining have Wills that will utilise both nil bands? how many have told their parents to look at this? How many of those wanting to live of their capital then pass it to their kids have looked at Loan Truts or Discounted Gift Trust arrangements to do just that? and thats just skimming the surface of options - if there was as much enthusiasm about getting advice as their was having a whine a whole lot of tax would be saved.
SN Fairy Godmother
errr, snug, I am looking for a financial wizard, as mentioned twice in this thread. Are you any good and where are you based 

Scooby Regular
Quote:
Originally Posted by 84of300
OK, I'll find my own
Your pm box is full clear some space
Scooby Regular
Quote:
Let's assume that you wish to give you share portfolio to your children that is worth say £100k and that you do not wish them to pay you for it. In terms of IHT providing you survive 7 years and do not have any 'Reservation of Benefit' then no IHT is payable.Originally Posted by **************
I don't know of any other tax that is tax on non commercial activity, there is only IHT that is a tax on personal asset transfer and there is no justification for it. Transfer of assets between family members is a family and private matter and is not income. The Government should keep their grave robbing thieving hands off.
However in terms of CGT even though you did not receive any money the IR will still charge CGT and tax you accordingly as it is a disposal of an asset from your Estate.