Caporegime
Proper inheritance taxation would deal with the issue in a number of generations.
£9bn inheritence
- Thread starter Telecaster
- Start date
Proper inheritance taxation would deal with the issue in a number of generations.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 728
It wouldn't matter whether they paid the income from the UK property out or not - it's UK source rental income, so taxable regardless of who receives it (unless charity / pension fund / sovereign wealth fund - none of which applies to Grosvenor).
Also - read the annual report. A significant chunk of the £9m is not property - Grosvenor have a very large property fund management business, where they co-invest the families funds with other investors (pension funds / insurance companies for the most part), and those investments are both in the UK and elsewhere.
Soldato
But when the 'inheritance' is a business and employing a sizeable number of people, IHT does not apply in that way. Otherwise all family owned businesses would fold every other generation.
I would not trust the state to manage or use this money any more capably than its current owners and it would probably obtain even less benefit than it does now. Politicians and civil servants are not wealth creators.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,546
wish I had 9bn
Caporegime
If a business is viable, the profits from it should be sufficient to clear the debts accrued in transfer, or ownership would be partially sold. I see no reason, at all, that a business should not be subject to inheritance tax.
The civil service is hugely important for productivity in this country. The only reason we're rich as the country is the infrastructure that has been built up over the years that allows the private sector to produce. Our low taxation levels mean that we're not producing that infrastructure and this UK productivity is very low. Higher tax countries like Sweden and Denmark are much more productive.
Because inheritance tax is the single fairest form of tax there is, since it is always levelled on completely unearned income, it makes sense to target it for increase.
How is being a 'friend of the tories' relevant to his personal 'inheritance tax bill'?
Pretty naff in theory too, why should all people be equal?
The Duke of Westminster's lands in London were bought at some point then given as wedding gift no?
Why is your land somehow special - all land in the UK was once 'stolen' in the Norman invasion then divided up under a feudal system then eventually bought and sold
Unlikely, you're usually getting a discount still if you need to extend the lease. You will however have issues with mortgages (thus perhaps part of the reason for the discount in buying a leasehold with not much time left and paying for an extension).
Caporegime
They were given i believe. Then transferred as a dowery.
Permabanned
Without seeing the full terms of the trust this is all pure speculation. It was probably set up to minimize inheritance tax. It may have left him an income from the trust with few if any powers to alter its terms. It may give him far reaching discretionary powers. It's unlikely though, but not impossible for him to be one of the trustees of his own trust. The trustees may have absolute power, they may be able to alter its terms, they may not be able to touch its terms at all. If people are so wound up about the aristocracy they could probably find what the terms of the trust are, then speculate from a position of knowledge and not from sheer jealousy 
Locally the late was Duke was held in high regard, and considered a fair and magnanimous landlord, and a gentleman. Historically vast wealth has led to sons and daughters of the owners of the assets going "off the rails", and led them to try and protect them from the follies of their progeny, and wisely so. They also have to protect them from grasping governments and greedy accountants and lawyers! Good luck to them, it's good to see true private wealth retained amongst the English.
Locally the late was Duke was held in high regard, and considered a fair and magnanimous landlord, and a gentleman. Historically vast wealth has led to sons and daughters of the owners of the assets going "off the rails", and led them to try and protect them from the follies of their progeny, and wisely so. They also have to protect them from grasping governments and greedy accountants and lawyers! Good luck to them, it's good to see true private wealth retained amongst the English.
It's not levied on unearned income though It's levied on the estate of the person that died. If it was levied on the the unearned income handed down to someone then the tax amount would probably be related to the amount of income the inheritee already had.
It's fundamentally misnamed, it's a death tax, not inheritance tax.
E.g. Currently anything over X of the deceased is taxed at Y before being allowed to be handed to anyone. Thats a tax on the deceased's estate, I.e. a death tax.
If on the other hand the estate was separated as per the will and then each bequevement was taxed based on the years income of each person gaining something (ie like capital gains tax) then that would be an inheritance tax.
It's actually one of the least "fair" as it doesn't take in to account the income of the person receiving the capital. Someone on £6k a year getting £500 from a dead relative "pays" the same tax rate as someone on £1m getting £50m handed down to them from the same person.
All that said, perhaps it is fair as its a flat tax rate. I'm all for a flat income tax rate as well.
Caporegime
It's paid by the people who benefit from it.
This is wrong. Someone receiving £500 pays nothing. There is a massive tax free limit on the estate.
I agree with some of your points, however. I believe inheritance should be recast as a personal tax so rather than being calculated on the estate it is calculated on what each person receives. I would give everyone a lifetime tax-free inheritance allowance - perhaps £150k - against which all inherited sums, and large gifts from relatives, are counted and levy a %age - perhaps 40% to start, rising to 75% above a million - on the amount above that.
This would allow people to totally avoid tax on what they leave if they wish but only if they divide it into small enough parcels given to enough people.
Soldato
The fact that he'll likely not be paying the crown £3.6bn (40%) same as the rest of us mere mortals and would likely have less chance of getting away with it under a different government?
Last edited:
Why do you believe that? Can you point to any legislation under say the previous Labour govt that would support your view? Because it sounds like total ******** really. That estate has existed for hundreds of years and in that time we've had labour, liberal and conservative govts.
Given that his father was a trustee I don't think it would be very unlikely at all. If anything it would seem rather likely that he'd be appointed as one now.
The only problem with that, other than the risk that expensive lawyers drive a coach and horses through it in the courts, is that for the large estates you are targetting, the effect will be much the same as the 60's Labour government wheeze of income tax rates including an invedtment income surcharge leading to a marginal income tax rate of something like 97%. The effect was capital flight.
People with estates that size are generally very mobile, and you'd immediately see many or most leave the country, at least as far as tax residency rules are concerned. Over a longer period, you can expect to see them divest fixed holdings in the UK, like property, and reinvest somewhere else. You'd also see an escalation in trusts and other such vehicles.
You can certainly expect to see a huge increase in the number of individuals with very large estates suddenly acquiring dual nationality, or even a different nationality and giving up UK citizenship entirely. Now, you'll find those estates are property of non-resident foreign citizens and not subject to UK inheritance tax at all. If those estates, and the chunks of them in UK pension funds, investment schemes and company shares suddenly move out, expect a substantial if deferred hit to UK PLC as well.
In other words, however idealogically great it might sound to "squeeze the pips until they squeak" the reality is it just doesn't work. The reality is, however much it might irritate, the very rich have options most people don't. Until someone uninvents money, and all substitutes, and we have a money-free world-wide benevolent communist paradise, I don't see that changing.
As people have said, if you go back far enough most peoples land was stolen or gifted to somebody.
Similar thing happened on the house we bought. Turns out the land wasn't freehold but was on a 1000 year lease from 1532. Cathereine Parr (Henry Eighth's wife) inherited it when the local Norman Lords family line died out and she sold the whole area to the Bowes family (Queen's mum family) who then rented it all out the locals on a 1000 year lease. Currently all (technically) owned by the Earl of Strathmore (turns out most of the county still is or would be)
However, the annual ground rent was set at 1 pence per annum and because the rent had not been collected for several decades or centuries, we were allowed to have the freehold transferred to us when we bought the property. There must had come a time when it wasn't worth sending the rent collector round for the one penny.,
So finally I own the land my property stands on (legally) however I didn't technically buy it (the previous owner of the house didnt actually own it) nor did anybody prior to him.
Even Catherine Parr inherited by default from the whole area being gifted to the FitzHugh family for the previous 600 years.
Anyway, like they say, "all property is theft"
Similar thing happened on the house we bought. Turns out the land wasn't freehold but was on a 1000 year lease from 1532. Cathereine Parr (Henry Eighth's wife) inherited it when the local Norman Lords family line died out and she sold the whole area to the Bowes family (Queen's mum family) who then rented it all out the locals on a 1000 year lease. Currently all (technically) owned by the Earl of Strathmore (turns out most of the county still is or would be)
However, the annual ground rent was set at 1 pence per annum and because the rent had not been collected for several decades or centuries, we were allowed to have the freehold transferred to us when we bought the property. There must had come a time when it wasn't worth sending the rent collector round for the one penny.,
So finally I own the land my property stands on (legally) however I didn't technically buy it (the previous owner of the house didnt actually own it) nor did anybody prior to him.
Even Catherine Parr inherited by default from the whole area being gifted to the FitzHugh family for the previous 600 years.
Anyway, like they say, "all property is theft"
Caporegime
How can anyone argue that he shouldn't pay the same amount as every other citizen of the United kingdom?
It is just another "scam" for the super mega wealthy corporations and powerful people to avoid paying what is reasonably due.
It is just another "scam" for the super mega wealthy corporations and powerful people to avoid paying what is reasonably due.
There's very simple and clear ways to avoid inheritance tax it's just the average Joe doesn't need to worry about it or wants to spend the money getting proper advice. Most wealthy people pay for proper advice and financial planning guidance which funnily enough sees them become more wealthy.