The Truth About Corporate Tax Dodging, BBC 1, Monday May 14th @ 8:30pm

spudbynight · 13 May 2012 at 17:34

Hatter The Mad said:
She doesn't have to be homeless, and yes society does have a claim to it because its very value now is largely the product of society, not your parents.

No, its value is the product of generations of blood, sweat and sacrifice.

Hatter The Mad · 13 May 2012 at 17:35

spudbynight said:
No, its value is the product of generations of blood, sweat and sacrifice.

No, not entirely I am afraid.

spudbynight · 13 May 2012 at 17:37

The Halk said:
You could though, make that argument about any possession. The big pile of shares or the 20 rented properties.

The reason to exclude 1 home is because it wouldn't defeat the purpose of IHT.

You don't need a pile of shares or 20 rented properties to sleep at night.

There is a fundamental difference between the roof over your head and an income generating asset.

To suggest that society should have a claim on a family home is the simple product of socialist envy.

spudbynight · 13 May 2012 at 17:37

Hatter The Mad said:
No, not entirely I am afraid.

In this case yes.

The Halk · 13 May 2012 at 17:38

spudbynight said:
You don't need a pile of shares or 20 rented properties to sleep at night.

There is a fundamental difference between the roof over your head and an income generating asset.

To suggest that society should have a claim on a family home is the simple product of socialist envy.

Your all over the place... It's either ok to keep it because it's a home or it's ok to keep it because it's been bought and paid for. I'm fine with the home thing, but not with the bought and paid for.

Hatter The Mad · 13 May 2012 at 17:38

spudbynight said:
It actually is not sellable at the moment. The house is in rural Ireland. It simply would not sell. Her mother doesn't have money to give her "an allowance"

Ok, then she could mortgage it to pay the tax bill and repay the mortgage with her salary.

Hatter The Mad · 13 May 2012 at 17:38

spudbynight said:
In this case yes.

Someone in your family was lucky enough to buy it at the right time/earliest opportunity. That's all, really. I'm sorry to make it sound crass and unsentimental, but that's the truth of the matter.

spudbynight · 13 May 2012 at 17:40

Hatter The Mad said:
Ok, then she could mortgage it to pay the tax bill and repay the mortgage with her salary.

What salary would that be? Her carers allowance that she doesn't receive from the state as they have to money to pay it? Her allowance from her elderly mother who doesn't have it to give?

Hatter The Mad · 13 May 2012 at 17:40

spudbynight said:
What salary would that be? Her carers allowance that she doesn't receive from the state as they have to money to pay it? Her allowance from her elderly mother who doesn't have it to give?

Once your parents passed away, she'd get a job I guess?

spudbynight · 13 May 2012 at 17:41

The Halk said:
Your all over the place... It's either ok to keep it because it's a home or it's ok to keep it because it's been bought and paid for. I'm fine with the home thing, but not with the bought and paid for.

I am in no way "all over the place".

You speak as if both statements conflict in some way - they don't.

spudbynight · 13 May 2012 at 17:43

Hatter The Mad said:
Once your parents passed away, she'd get a job I guess?

Not my parents.

In Ireland at the moment the job situation is much worse than it is here. A woman of near 40 who has not been in employment for over 10 years will not be able to get a job that will cover the cost of the inheritance tax on that home.

We are getting involved in the specifics of an individual case though. I strongly believe that the family home should be exempt from IHT. I fail to see any justice in seeking to dispossess a family of their family home.

Hatter The Mad · 13 May 2012 at 17:45

spudbynight said:
Not my parents.

In Ireland at the moment the job situation is much worse than it is here. A woman of near 40 who has not been in employment for over 10 years will not be able to get a job that will cover the cost of the inheritance tax on that home.

Then she would need to sell the house, and downsize using the remaining money, I guess.

Thinking out loud: I wonder how costly it would be to add in a process and additional tax benefit for live-in carers without creating loopholes.

But either way, houses and land most certainly should not be excluded from IHT.

Pudney · 13 May 2012 at 18:00

Hatter The Mad said:
Then she would need to sell the house, and downsize using the remaining money, I guess.

Thinking out loud: I wonder how costly it would be to add in a process and additional tax benefit for live-in carers without creating loopholes.

But either way, houses and land most certainly should not be excluded from IHT.

Just do what there is for CGT, exemption for primary homes.

Although I don't agree with IHT, just helping you with a solution.

Amp34 · 13 May 2012 at 19:45

scorza said:
Aren't rich individuals able to avoid most of their tax bills quite easily?

Surely the more sensible option is to de-globalise through e.g. increased tax harmonisation, clamp downs on un-cooperative tax havens and tough general anti-avoidance rules.

Why?

Why should nations not be allowed to decide what their tax rate is going to be?

If a nation decides its policies can survive on taxing business 5% rather than 20% why should it have to raise tax to 20% to harmonise with other nations?

Maybe there is an argument for nations to legislate in their own countries to stop this but that is another matter entirely.

As for Inheritance tax, I'd be happyish with the limit set at £1m rather than the current £250-300k ish it is now, at least then it will be set to do what it was designed to do rather than penalise people that have a family and live in the south...