Another petition - time the Government did away with Inheritance Tax
26 February 2007, 08:07 AM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Another petition - time the Government did away with Inheritance Tax
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ensure that inheritance tax is scrapped in this year's Budget.
Don't care if this has already been put up here, I haven't seen it and whether it makes any difference to that robbing b4stard Gordon Brown or not its still worth signing in my opinion if it gets the press to highlight how many people do not want inheritance tax to exist. The more who sign it the more the press will pick up on it and it will be another kick in the b0ll0x for Labour before election time.
Don't care if this has already been put up here, I haven't seen it and whether it makes any difference to that robbing b4stard Gordon Brown or not its still worth signing in my opinion if it gets the press to highlight how many people do not want inheritance tax to exist. The more who sign it the more the press will pick up on it and it will be another kick in the b0ll0x for Labour before election time.
26 February 2007, 09:09 AM
#2
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
waste of time for two obvious reasons:
1. IHT was paid by about 5 or 6% of estates last year - so it is effecting a small number of people.
2. The budget is round the corner - i'm no expert but i reckon the doing away with a multibillion pound revenue from a taxation approach that has been around since roman times would take a little more thinking about than what this petition offers.
"gets the press to highlight how many people do not want inheritance tax to exist"
if you had a poll saying income tax was lowered from 22 to 15% you would get just as many people saying "good idea"...and about as likely to happen!
1. IHT was paid by about 5 or 6% of estates last year - so it is effecting a small number of people.
2. The budget is round the corner - i'm no expert but i reckon the doing away with a multibillion pound revenue from a taxation approach that has been around since roman times would take a little more thinking about than what this petition offers.
"gets the press to highlight how many people do not want inheritance tax to exist"
if you had a poll saying income tax was lowered from 22 to 15% you would get just as many people saying "good idea"...and about as likely to happen!
Last edited by The Snug Rhino; 26 February 2007 at 09:11 AM. Reason: .
26 February 2007, 09:23 AM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Inheritance tax is paid on anything over £285k right? Well there are a hell of a lot of houses in this country worth well over that and when the owners die their relatives either stump up a massive tax bill or have to sell their relatives home to pay for it. That is just wrong. Its grave robbery.
26 February 2007, 10:58 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This tax was initially intended to raise some money from the very rich members of society who owned houses in the value band for the tax. What has happened is that that band has not been effectively increased with inflation and house prices etc. so that more and more are unfairly dragged into having to pay it. Remember that the money it is paid on has already been taxed when it was counted as income, these are the principles that people are quite justified in complaining about.
If they want to make the taxes we pay more effective. then they should start by reducing the incredible waste in top heavy bureaucracy and handing our taxes out to people who do not deserve it.
Les
If they want to make the taxes we pay more effective. then they should start by reducing the incredible waste in top heavy bureaucracy and handing our taxes out to people who do not deserve it.
Les
26 February 2007, 12:12 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Trending Topics
26 February 2007, 12:56 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brighton no more
Posts: 2,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree the money has to come from somewhere, but maybe someone can fill me in on what's really wrong here.
Say my uncle dies (or who-ever, doesn't matter), and leaves me his house.
It's worth £300k, so I have to pay tax on £15k (300-285)?
So what? I've just been given over £285k.
Did I have to do anything for it? No.
Was it mine?
No.
I'm confused!
Say my uncle dies (or who-ever, doesn't matter), and leaves me his house.
It's worth £300k, so I have to pay tax on £15k (300-285)?
So what? I've just been given over £285k.
Did I have to do anything for it? No.
Was it mine?
No.
I'm confused!
26 February 2007, 01:05 PM
#9
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
so what?
you have to be dead...the average dead person is old in a house worth less than the nil band -hence so few people ACTUALLY pay it.
its not a big deal to most people.
26 February 2007, 01:53 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
I wouldn't expect you to agree with getting rid of it Tiggs as you make your living from people doing their utmost to avoid it and asking you how.
And to answer the others about greed, the money being taxed has already been taxed once. For example my father will have paid a **** load of tax on what he has earnt and saved for his family over the decades and doesn't see why it should be taxed again at another 40% when he decides to leave it to his family. He worked extremely hard in the first place for the Government to take upto 60% of it in tax and what he has put aside to then go and be taxed another 40% is daylight robbery. He actually asked me to sign this petition because the thought of paying 40% tax on money that has already been heavily taxed is hard to accept and I totally agree with his thoughts. I would feel exactly the same if I built up security for my kids only for the Government to take nearly half of it away from them when I die. The Government are the greedy ones and robbing thieving scum at that.
And to answer the others about greed, the money being taxed has already been taxed once. For example my father will have paid a **** load of tax on what he has earnt and saved for his family over the decades and doesn't see why it should be taxed again at another 40% when he decides to leave it to his family. He worked extremely hard in the first place for the Government to take upto 60% of it in tax and what he has put aside to then go and be taxed another 40% is daylight robbery. He actually asked me to sign this petition because the thought of paying 40% tax on money that has already been heavily taxed is hard to accept and I totally agree with his thoughts. I would feel exactly the same if I built up security for my kids only for the Government to take nearly half of it away from them when I die. The Government are the greedy ones and robbing thieving scum at that.
26 February 2007, 02:11 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And this is the reason IHT is fair - It is the person that gets taxed, not the item. The fact the property has already had taxed paid on it in the form of stamp duty, or through money earned to pay mortgage payments is irrelevant.
For example, a used car salesman still has to pay tax on the profit of cars he sells - That same car may have has tax paid on it many times over. You dont not tax him just because the car has already been subject to it.
As it stands you get a tax free lump sum of up to £285k, that's pretty bloody good. You could argue it should be set slightly higher due to the disparity between the threshold rasies and the average house price raise in the last 10 years (around 30% versus over 100%) However, you cant raise and lower the threshold on a yearly basis, it wouldn't be fair. So you have to take a long term view on it.
Always remember, it is the person that is taxed, not the item. In that respect, IHT is completely fair.
For example, a used car salesman still has to pay tax on the profit of cars he sells - That same car may have has tax paid on it many times over. You dont not tax him just because the car has already been subject to it.
As it stands you get a tax free lump sum of up to £285k, that's pretty bloody good. You could argue it should be set slightly higher due to the disparity between the threshold rasies and the average house price raise in the last 10 years (around 30% versus over 100%) However, you cant raise and lower the threshold on a yearly basis, it wouldn't be fair. So you have to take a long term view on it.
Always remember, it is the person that is taxed, not the item. In that respect, IHT is completely fair.
26 February 2007, 02:19 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1998
Posts: 11,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
)
26 February 2007, 02:28 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a pretty big hole to fill, either through raisng other taxes or cutting back services. Considering we already have a tax shortfall I would say the likelyhood of IHT being abololished in the short term is zero.
As for the conservatives, thier recent think tank suggested replacing IHT with a form of capital gains tax, exempting family homes. It would also scrap the child tax credits to any family not in the basic tax rate band (i.e. anyone earning over £7,185). (by the way, the low tax band would be abolished entirely and replaced with a higher tax free allowance) It would abolish tax releif on film making and R&D.
There is no free ride - You cannot cut £3.3bn out of the public purse and not either replace it elsewhere, or cut back services.
26 February 2007, 02:31 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, Dunk/ru are right, you pay on anything over £285k, same as with the higher tax rate, you pay 40% on anything over £33300 (plus your tax releif, so effectively £37500 or thereabouts)
26 February 2007, 03:13 PM
#20
SN Fairy Godmother
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How anyone can say this is a fair tax is beyond me 
I am working hard and saving and investing for my kids, so when I croak, they can have as much as possible. Bearing in mind, to do all of this I have paid taxes on just about everything apart from ear wax. Why should my kids have to pay tax again.
I am working hard and saving and investing for my kids, so when I croak, they can have as much as possible. Bearing in mind, to do all of this I have paid taxes on just about everything apart from ear wax. Why should my kids have to pay tax again.
26 February 2007, 03:30 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been working in IHT planning for nearly 15 years and find this crops up ever year around Budget time.
The present Government and indeed the previous one will not push forward plans to get rid of the tax, as they would be left with a massive tax hole that would need plugging. Joy public still believes that IHT is a tax on the rich so it is not a vote winner. If you ask if their take home pay is increased by favourable taxation then they will vote accordingly.
Also it has always been regarded as a voluntary Tax as much planning can be done to reduce and underpin the tax. A married couple can have assets worth £570,000 and with the right planning leave it all to beneficiaries with no tax.
Certainly in the last few years a number of opportunities have been closed but still much can be done.
The present Government and indeed the previous one will not push forward plans to get rid of the tax, as they would be left with a massive tax hole that would need plugging. Joy public still believes that IHT is a tax on the rich so it is not a vote winner. If you ask if their take home pay is increased by favourable taxation then they will vote accordingly.
Also it has always been regarded as a voluntary Tax as much planning can be done to reduce and underpin the tax. A married couple can have assets worth £570,000 and with the right planning leave it all to beneficiaries with no tax.
Certainly in the last few years a number of opportunities have been closed but still much can be done.
26 February 2007, 03:36 PM
#23
SN Fairy Godmother
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been working in IHT planning for nearly 15 years and find this crops up ever year around Budget time.
The present Government and indeed the previous one will not push forward plans to get rid of the tax, as they would be left with a massive tax hole that would need plugging. Joy public still believes that IHT is a tax on the rich so it is not a vote winner. If you ask if their take home pay is increased by favourable taxation then they will vote accordingly.
Also it has always been regarded as a voluntary Tax as much planning can be done to reduce and underpin the tax. A married couple can have assets worth £570,000 and with the right planning leave it all to beneficiaries with no tax.
Certainly in the last few years a number of opportunities have been closed but still much can be done.
The present Government and indeed the previous one will not push forward plans to get rid of the tax, as they would be left with a massive tax hole that would need plugging. Joy public still believes that IHT is a tax on the rich so it is not a vote winner. If you ask if their take home pay is increased by favourable taxation then they will vote accordingly.
Also it has always been regarded as a voluntary Tax as much planning can be done to reduce and underpin the tax. A married couple can have assets worth £570,000 and with the right planning leave it all to beneficiaries with no tax.
Certainly in the last few years a number of opportunities have been closed but still much can be done.
I want all of what I gather to go to my kids, not the tax man
26 February 2007, 05:21 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
How anyone can say this is a fair tax is beyond me
I am working hard and saving and investing for my kids, so when I croak, they can have as much as possible. Bearing in mind, to do all of this I have paid taxes on just about everything apart from ear wax. Why should my kids have to pay tax again.
I am working hard and saving and investing for my kids, so when I croak, they can have as much as possible. Bearing in mind, to do all of this I have paid taxes on just about everything apart from ear wax. Why should my kids have to pay tax again.
Because 84 there are obviously people on this site who like to see their parents earnings robbed from them by the Government and think its absolutely fine that money their parents have already paid tax on is taxed again to pay for services its already been taxed on to pay for. Those who like to pay twice obviously do have too much money and don't mind giving it away.
As for the child tax credit scheme being off set etc hmm let me see, lose a few quid a month to stop the Government taking thousands and thousands from my parents estate? I think I know which one I would rather opt for
26 February 2007, 06:23 PM
#25
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
and a lot of the money isnt double taxed - as everyone is so keen to state house prices are the bulk of the problem for many....and that growth has been tax free.
all the people giving it the "i'm saving for my kids"...really? placing it in trusts are you? if so - whats your problem?
26 February 2007, 07:34 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Placing it in trusts is unrealistic when its the value of the entire estate you are talking about. Sure you can place *some* in trusts but the whole point is people live their lives and then whats left of their estate when they have lived their lives goes to their relatives. People shouldn't have to live thier lives constantly calculating each year what they have left and what they need for the next year and keep adding to trusts with the alternative being to let the Government rob them upon their death.
Last edited by Bravo2zero_sps; 26 February 2007 at 07:37 PM.
26 February 2007, 08:03 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inheritance tax is paid on anything over £285k right? Well there are a hell of a lot of houses in this country worth well over that and when the owners die their relatives either stump up a massive tax bill or have to sell their relatives home to pay for it. That is just wrong. Its grave robbery.
So raise it to 500k then.
If you abolish inheritance tax you have to raise other taxes to match it. I for one dont fancy paying higher petrol tax to make up for Mr Johnny Millionaire's lower tax bill from the abolition of IHT.
26 February 2007, 08:35 PM
#28
I have a foot in both camps, whilst I obviously would want to realise as much of my cash to go to my kids, or my parents estate to come to me, there is an element of, so what, you are getting an effing big wedge so stop moaning.
27 February 2007, 11:10 AM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27 February 2007, 02:54 PM
#30
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
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!