David Blunkett wants a death tax.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
This is the big argument for me as well.
The reason I don't rent and I have mortgaged is so I will own a house at the end of my life and have something to hand down to my son. It serves no purpose to me paying off a mortgage all my life.
This will just push more in to the pockets of the landlords/companies that hoard the housing. A company can't 'die' so will purely affect the private owner.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 1,080
Because for the majority of people that aren't Jimmy Carr/Take That/etc, tax has already been paid on this money - when it was originally earned. Not forgetting of course that you'd pay capital gains tax on any property you inherit then sell.
How much additional tax would you like people to pay on money that has already been taxed several times?
He's blind.....
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
There was a lad on here a few months back asking how to spend his windfall, 24 hours after his granny died.
Don't forget inheritence tax..
Like you said, how many times does the house need to be taxed?
I know I just twigged who he was and tried to edit. Clearly not fast enough
.Sorry.
Don't I look insensitive now
.
Last edited:
As many times as it takes the state to take it all.
One of my employees had a family friend pass recently. Nephews he hadn't seen for decades inherited the estate and cashed in, people he didn't know or want to know, because they were the closest living relatives.
It was his fault for not having a will, but it shows that it's not always a loved one you benefit from. They didn't know each other.
It was his fault for not having a will, but it shows that it's not always a loved one you benefit from. They didn't know each other.
This post ^ is actually quite sickening.
How damned entitled can you be to be suggesting a net inheritance of well over half a £million leaves you in any way hard done by, and makes you "hardly rich"?!
I'm not a soundbite fan, but I'm minded of a popular privilege-checking meme.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,114
No you wouldn't.
You pay capital gains tax on any rise in value of the property over the value at probate. Subject to annual allowances, meaning you wouldn't tend to pay any capital gains tax if you sell soon after acquisition
To be clear: the value at probate is deducted from any sale proceeds, and you are assessed on CGT on the remainder.
In the unlikely event of this coming in, I'll find a loop hole to pass as much as I can to my son in the most tax efficient way possible.
Given that there's income tax, inherritance tax, capital gains tax, and Blunkett know what else tax I think I would have paid my dues by that point. The last thing I want our son to have to deal with is disposal of my estate with a fat cheque going off to the treasury.
Guess again Dave.
As a family we've always planned accordingly, most recently my Grandfather required continuous care and we dealt with that ourselves.
Looking at the bigger picture here, the housing market in this country used to be a fall back position/inherritence for a much larger number of folk. As the market has become more expensive, and unobtainable for more this is now becoming a pressing issue. Perhaps instead of looking to tax those who have worked hard to attain, perhaps we should look at making the fall back position more attainable so people can do the responsible thing and fund themselves instead of relying upon the state. A little idealistic perhaps.
Given that there's income tax, inherritance tax, capital gains tax, and Blunkett know what else tax I think I would have paid my dues by that point. The last thing I want our son to have to deal with is disposal of my estate with a fat cheque going off to the treasury.
Guess again Dave.
As a family we've always planned accordingly, most recently my Grandfather required continuous care and we dealt with that ourselves.
Looking at the bigger picture here, the housing market in this country used to be a fall back position/inherritence for a much larger number of folk. As the market has become more expensive, and unobtainable for more this is now becoming a pressing issue. Perhaps instead of looking to tax those who have worked hard to attain, perhaps we should look at making the fall back position more attainable so people can do the responsible thing and fund themselves instead of relying upon the state. A little idealistic perhaps.
Last edited:
PAHAHA. Sit down friend. Never did I say it would leave me hard done by. I find it disgusting that the state can take over £300k of my parents money just because they died... plain and simple.
I would then have to sell the house to pay the bill. Which would then mean capital gains tax. So my parents death would mean inheritence tax, capital gains tax, and death tax... that is perfectly fine with you?
You heard it here. Having £500k makes you rich. Especially when it's tied up in assets...
Do me a favour. By your logic most people who own a house and a car in the South East would be rich..
Last edited:
Rich is a subjective term but £500k in Sunderland/Middlesbrough would make you rich, yes.
You are speaking from a position of privilege.
That state wouldn't be taking the money from your parents, it would be taking they money from you.
Mate, average lifetime earnings in the UK is about £1million. receiving assets of well in excess of half a £million makes you pretty ****ing fortunate.
get some perspective.
Very much so... but I don't live there.
Where I live / work it wouldn't get you too far...
...and that is fine, but you are still speaking from privilege. The fact you can afford to live/work somewhere that £500k is not seen as a substantial amount of money is testament to that.
Where's OP's summary of his disgust with the proposal, anyway.
It's not just another troll thread is it?
It's not just another troll thread is it?
I'm tempted to just refer back to my responses in that thread, to be honest. Just going over old ground here.