No "average Joe" pays any inheritance tax anyway. You need to be in the very top echelons of British wealth to be subject to the tax.
£9bn inheritence
- Thread starter Telecaster
- Start date
No "average Joe" pays any inheritance tax anyway. You need to be in the very top echelons of British wealth to be subject to the tax.
Poor people cant afford to be told how to con the system so they remain poor ? Wow ?
Pretty much anyone inheriting a property in London in the next 10-15 years is going to be hit @£400k+
**** the Uk and its tax loop holes and blatant scams. The system is an insult to its citizens.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
Land ownership by aristocrats is nothing more than title badgering. Most of the time it literally means absolutely zip and has no real meaning.
You could have the title and paper over the land, but the fact is you earn nothing from it. People who have purchased land within the boundary or built property on it, all get paid.
It's a really strange state of affairs.
You could have the title and paper over the land, but the fact is you earn nothing from it. People who have purchased land within the boundary or built property on it, all get paid.
It's a really strange state of affairs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
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"
Yeah, that is what I was getting at. You can't really own land in the UK. Even when you buy bricks and mortar, you don't own what is beneath it.
No, it isn't. Or more accurately, it usually isn't, since there are exceptions where it is. IHT is paid, normally, by the person or people dealing with the will, the executors, before the beneficiaries get their inheritance.
It is, obviously, going to have the effect of reducing the value of the estate, and therefore the amount the beneficiaries get, so it feels like the beneficiaries pay it. But in reality, the IHT is already gone before the beneficiaries come into possession of their bequest, other than in those exceptions.
Land value tax on land would most likely be better than inheritance tax for economy. Considering that great British economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo talked about it's merits quarter millenia ago, I find it curious that Tories have been able to prevent it from happening.
That's easy.
Do you think someone with an estate of £100,000 should pay the same "amount" as someone with an estate of £10m? If so, either the big estate gets off very lightly, or the £100k estate is wiped out and the beneficially left with a bankruptcy-inducing tax bill.
Or do you mean same "rate" rather than amount? Or merely the same rules?
If so, IHT on estates involving trusts is extremely complicated. For a start, at what point do you levy IHT on Trusts? When you put assets in, while they're in, on incone received from the trust or when assets are sold? In reality, under the mix of IHT and income tax law, there'll be elements of all the above.
But that barely scratches the surface. What value do you put on an asset inside a trust for IHT purposes. And how do you vslue it? The value when the settlor bought the asset, or ehen it went into the trust, or the value on death? But if the latter, why, since the settlor no longer owns or controls the asset?
And, of course, there is a selection of types of trust, all legally different, many with different tax rules and implications. In many cases, tax is paid, typically at 20%, on putting assets into many types of trust, paid periodically on the value (see above about valuations) of trusts under the 10 year rules, paid again on income received out of he trust, and again on assets removed from trusts.
Very simple trusts may be within the reach of many average people, though even then a bill of a grand or two is far from unknown. But complex trusts on very large assets are extremely expensive to set up and not cheap to keep running precisely because tax law on thrm is so very complicated that it takes specialised accountants and lawyers to do it. Get it wrong and it can become an extremely expensive mistake.
But those same provisions are available to everybody. But, like Ferraris, you are able to buy one, but can you afford to?
I mean, come on, idealism is all very well but you don't really think that money doesn't finally determine who gets what, do you? I'm not sure if that's idealism or just naivete. Who gets the best suit, the rich man with a £5k handmade item or the guy buying off the peg in M&S? Who gets the best watch, the guy with the precision Swiss timepiece or the guy with a cheap knockoff of the Swiss timepiece? Get accused of a crime and who is most likely to get off, the kid with the novice public lawyer, or the rich man with half a dozen highly experienced barristers? Who eats at the best restaurants, flies first class and who uses McDonalds and is stuck in economy?
Until the great revolution comes and the rich are first up against the wall, money talks. And after the great revolution, nothing much changes except the names of the privileged. Take a look at Russia. For all the idealism of communism, they ended up, with decades of murder and oppression from communist leaders where the curency was power, and ended up back where they started, except now the privileged are called oligarchs instead of princes, but the poor are still poor. And about 80 years behind the West.
No, it is paid by the estate before the proceeds are distributed. There may also be gifts made during the lifetime taken into account.
Not quite so very top: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/94b6ebf0-5568-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60.html#axzz4HGapAMmf
The people who benefit can't even access the money until the the tax has been paid to the government.
They don't no, neither does the person receiving £1,000,000 as any tax has already been taken before they are handed anything.
Yep, sounds reasonable, although I would lower the rate and class it as a capital gain and as such tax it at that rate. Trusts are totally different vehicles though so wouldn't come under these rules.
Or own a reasonable sized house in the South. Luckily some of that has been removed with the transferring of tax free limit to surviving spouse but it doesn't help everyone.
Fiscal drag has changed inheritance tax form only affecting the top echelons to a significant proportion of people, most of who will only have a single asset forcing them into the inheritance tax bracket - their family home.
EDIT:
https://www.ft.com/content/bb99b10c-b460-11e5-8358-9a82b43f6b2f
Around 8% of deaths this year as an example. That's not upper echelons. And thinking about it it will probably affect the estates of both my grandmothers (as an example). One living in an ex council house she has lived in for 50 years and the other living in a similar sized 3 bedroom house. Neither are remotely in the upper echelons of britain.
Last edited:
I wonder how many people who are criticising this young man are living in ex-council houses which in the eyes of many shouldn't have been sold off and were effectively stolen from 'the people' as bribery for votes.
Not that I am saying I subscribe to either view but it is somewhat hypocritical if you have or will have the benefit from the gifting of property to then criticise someone else.
As for my opinion I am under no illusions that this is wealth is being retained by the British people - it is not - but it's not being sold off to foreign firms and individuals. So in that regard I am not too fussed. My guess is this will be more of a chain to the lad than a boon long term and whilst allowing him unlimited access to the superficial it may seriously impede his ability to gain and retain what we know to be truly valuable in life. My heart believes this wealth should not be passed on without taxation but my brain tells me if the government got their hands on it they'd squander it.
Not that I am saying I subscribe to either view but it is somewhat hypocritical if you have or will have the benefit from the gifting of property to then criticise someone else.
As for my opinion I am under no illusions that this is wealth is being retained by the British people - it is not - but it's not being sold off to foreign firms and individuals. So in that regard I am not too fussed. My guess is this will be more of a chain to the lad than a boon long term and whilst allowing him unlimited access to the superficial it may seriously impede his ability to gain and retain what we know to be truly valuable in life. My heart believes this wealth should not be passed on without taxation but my brain tells me if the government got their hands on it they'd squander it.
From that article: "Meanwhile, official forecasts suggest the proportion of estates liable for the death duty will reach 8.3 per cent". I stand by my statement.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,351
- Location
- La France
Rubbish. There are ex-council properties in London that are above the IHT threshold today. A 3 bedroom house in a desirable area is now at least £500K.
IHT is just like income tax. Once it becomes big enough you can afford the accountant fees to make it smaller.
that's why people who earn millions can pay an effective rate of tax of 10%.
For example say you earn 10 million a year and should pay 4 million in tax it's worth paying an accountant half a million to reduce that to one million a year.
Mid earning people can't afford these schemes or they don't pan out effective eg I was looking at somebody who was earning 250k a year and I could reduce his tax legally from 100k to 50k but would cost 50k to do it so what's the point?
Same with IHT. Loads of people in the south will insure it but can't afford to pay to avoid it. The rich can.
that's why people who earn millions can pay an effective rate of tax of 10%.
For example say you earn 10 million a year and should pay 4 million in tax it's worth paying an accountant half a million to reduce that to one million a year.
Mid earning people can't afford these schemes or they don't pan out effective eg I was looking at somebody who was earning 250k a year and I could reduce his tax legally from 100k to 50k but would cost 50k to do it so what's the point?
Same with IHT. Loads of people in the south will insure it but can't afford to pay to avoid it. The rich can.
What exactly are you referring to when you say 'have the title and paper'?
I think you may be confused.
Bit lazy to just post a link like that, could you try explaining what your point is and how it refers to my post that you quoted please?
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Do you believe it is wrong that tax is paid on the inheritance of enormous capital gains that simply 'happened' without any real input?
The level of inheritance is already far and away in excess of anything that could have been dreamed about 30 years ago when the property was purchased so whilst generally IHT is a horrible tax it is difficult to see how it's more horrible in these cases?
I still don't understand why people insist on inheritance taxation. Why not just tax the property itself?[TW]Fox;29899660 said:
Better take 1% of land value a year (easily covered by renting the land) instead of trying (and failing) to take 40% once every generation.