Another petition - time the Government did away with Inheritance Tax
27 February 2007, 06:37 PM
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
27 February 2007, 10:30 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
28 February 2007, 12:12 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I have ad blocked my rep - so dont waste your time!
Posts: 1,548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
28 February 2007, 12:13 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I have ad blocked my rep - so dont waste your time!
Posts: 1,548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
28 February 2007, 01:26 PM
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
28 February 2007, 01:32 PM
#39
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
28 February 2007, 02:35 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
28 February 2007, 02:51 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
28 February 2007, 05:18 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brighton no more
Posts: 2,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
28 February 2007, 05:24 PM
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
28 February 2007, 06:17 PM
#44
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
28 February 2007, 06:38 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
28 February 2007, 06:53 PM
#46
SN Fairy Godmother
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
28 February 2007, 07:16 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
28 February 2007, 07:16 PM
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
28 February 2007, 07:19 PM
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
28 February 2007, 07:20 PM
#50
SN Fairy Godmother
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
28 February 2007, 07:25 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you read your post and compare what I had said you will see it is infact one and the same.
28 February 2007, 07:29 PM
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
28 February 2007, 07:48 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
28 February 2007, 07:53 PM
#54
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.
28 February 2007, 08:41 PM
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
28 February 2007, 10:58 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I have ad blocked my rep - so dont waste your time!
Posts: 1,548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
01 March 2007, 06:06 AM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.