True, good point.
Millennials are likely to enjoy the biggest "inheritance boom"
- Thread starter LabR@t
- Start date
I guess it depends on the motives behind the estate tax in the first place.
If it’s simply to give a bit more cash to the exchequer then fine, but historically estate taxes haven’t brought in a huge amount due to the top 1 percent finding clever ways of avoiding it and the rest not owning enough to qualify.
If it’s an attempt to reduce the concentration of wealth in the top 1% (and especially the top 0.1%) then something more needs to be done, as so much wealth in the upper centile is hidden or exempt from the estate tax.
You run the risk of punishing the middle classes who have accumulated a modest amount of wealth to pass on to their children (net of care costs) while those at the very top escape relatively unscathed.
If it’s simply to give a bit more cash to the exchequer then fine, but historically estate taxes haven’t brought in a huge amount due to the top 1 percent finding clever ways of avoiding it and the rest not owning enough to qualify.
If it’s an attempt to reduce the concentration of wealth in the top 1% (and especially the top 0.1%) then something more needs to be done, as so much wealth in the upper centile is hidden or exempt from the estate tax.
You run the risk of punishing the middle classes who have accumulated a modest amount of wealth to pass on to their children (net of care costs) while those at the very top escape relatively unscathed.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,705
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Last year my Mum was put on an End Of Life/Palliative Care Plan which means none of her home/money will be touched.
If anybody knows different to this then let me know because this was how it was explained to us by Douglas MacMillan.
But he used the word "fair" and by definition it means theres always someone worse off than you so they can take what they want
One day, lad, all this will be yours.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,172
What is this nonsense
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 9,526
- Location
- Southampton, hopefully not too hot, or too cold
It beggars belief that inheritance is not already taxed as additional income for those that receive it, but has inheritance tax deducted from the estate before the recipients get their slice.
If two siblings receive an equal amount of inheritance, but one lives alone on benefits and the other earns £50k plus their spouse earns £30k, shouldn't the sibling in the better financial situation pay more tax on their inheritance share?
If two siblings receive an equal amount of inheritance, but one lives alone on benefits and the other earns £50k plus their spouse earns £30k, shouldn't the sibling in the better financial situation pay more tax on their inheritance share?
But why? Tax has already been paid on that. Several times over in many cases!
Why, because that's the status quo. Death duties, inheritance tax, whatever it has been in the past - it is a tax on assets upon death that's mostly (charities, religious organisations, political parties etc exempt) oblivious to the recipient. In doing so the way it does it also does not impact the income tax position of the recipient.
Being cynical, it is also a known and more guaranteed income to the State, as it taxes a known amount and not an unknown amount due to the unknown tax status of unknown beneficiaries upon death.
The alternatives suggested (that I'm not dismissing) would also play havoc with our overly complicated tax legislation as unearned income. Taxation, for a modern society, is needlessly complex now, and the trouble with looking at things such as this is that the majority of ideas tend to over-complicate things even more.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,705
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
"What, the curtains?"
Huge tracts of land, etc.
The initial theory was to stop the wealth staying with the top few % of people, now it seems only the top few % are the only people in a position to avoid paying it....
Most people have great success in avoiding inheritance tax on account of their estates being far too small.
If one sibling gets out of bed every day, earns money for his family, pays tax on those earnings, and is a net contributor to the country, yet the second sibling gets to lay in each day while other people go to work to pay for their keep, then why do you want to penalise the net contributor and reward people who don't contribute?
I appreciate that there will be people unable to contribute despite wanting to. But why penalise the person who can? That's what such a blanket statement is suggesting.
Nothing says progress like state seizure of property.
