Have your parents thought about inheritance tax?
- Thread starter singist
- Start date
WIBSBOT said:
Fine...Then you wont object to having your income tax raised?
People having no reason to work hard during their life = carper society.
I know many people, myself included who want to work hard in this life to provide for their kids...If people cant do that, whats the point in working hard?
If our hard work is taken away from us when we die, why on earth would anyone bother working any harder than the very basic level needed to survive?
WIBSBOT said:
Me me me is all you'll ever heard people complain about ANY tax. Tax is a PERSONAL thing, we are taxed as individuals.
What's the moral justifcation of inheritance tax? What purpose does it serve other than just being another tax?
There's nothing wrong with tax, but there has to be limits.
You could say the same about any tax. You could give the same reasoning for increasing income tax to 50% or bringing in poll tax. We already pay enough tax, death tax is a step too far. Seeing as you know where our tax goes perhaps you could explin where taxation should stop?
for the good of society.Vanilla said:
Vanilla said:
see point above.
Vanilla said:
Tax should stop when the government has balanced it's books.
The only issue I have with tax, is that it isn't used efficiently. I would happilly pay more tax to aid society if it was used in the most efficient manner, even if I have to give up some luxuries.
Before you ask, no I am not rich, yes I have kids, and no I am not a saint,(and I don't give all my income away.) I just know that the government has to balance the books, and if it abolished inheritance tax, it would still find a way to get the money from you some how.
If more people shared the same attitude, and didn't exploit the tax loopholes (i.e. steal money from society,) then we would all pay less tax and live in a better society.
If they did abolish inheritance tax then other taxes would simply rise to make up the shortfall. I'd say that someone receiving a five hundred grand inheritance can afford to forego 40% and still be left with four hundred thousand pounds.. (written in longhand to emphasise what a massive wedge of dosh it is).
(actually, my maths may be a tad out there but whatever
) the point is the same.
(actually, my maths may be a tad out there but whatever
) the point is the same.WIBSBOT said:
Regardless, we are taxed a individuals and that is why people are upset by certain tax and high tax.
You could say the answer to any tax is 'for the good of the society'. Why is ingeritance tax good for society?
Would you agree on 80% income tax? Why not, it's for the good of the society.
This goes back to to what I said before about limits.
The never happens. Governments will spend all they have (Labour spending the Conservative war chest) and when they do balance their books they start hoarding money (the conservatives).
They will spend spend spen until they are in the negative and then spend borrowed money.
Some interesting comments which I just found from googling the subject, which are in agreement with my views.
(I highlighted the part which sums up the whole issue the best)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3169611.stm
(I highlighted the part which sums up the whole issue the best)
Last edited:
dirtydog said:If they did abolish inheritance tax then other taxes would simply rise to make up the shortfall. I'd say that someone receiving a five hundred grand inheritance can afford to forego 40% and still be left with four hundred thousand pounds.. (written in longhand to emphasise what a massive wedge of dosh it is).
(actually, my maths may be a tad out there but whatever
I'd be fine with paying tax elsewhere. The problem with IHT is that it is an unfair tax in the eyes of many. It is state approved grave robbery. Inheritance tax entirely avoids hitting the wealthy. It hits the middle classes.
OMG YOU HAVE LOADSAMONEY LEFT WHAT DOES IT MATTER is a moot point, this is the money someone has worked hard to build up.
Treasury would win far greater income if it let families retain their assets. Heirs can only do two things - invest or spend.
There should be a balance in the amount of tax each individual pays and it should be fair. If you don't think that paying 40% in inheritance tax of over 275k is fair then that's your right. I happen to think that's very fair especially when it will be going to a good cause (i.e. the rest of us.)
If the government doesn't balance the books then we (as tax payers) get crippled with interest on the 'overdraft,' and end up paying more in taxes to cover the interest which is what happens now I believe.
I'm not sure if I know of one country that doesn't have a deficit ? But I do know that every single country tries to reduce that deficient otherwise inflation can spiral out of control as happened with Argentina.
If the government doesn't balance the books then we (as tax payers) get crippled with interest on the 'overdraft,' and end up paying more in taxes to cover the interest which is what happens now I believe.
I'm not sure if I know of one country that doesn't have a deficit ? But I do know that every single country tries to reduce that deficient otherwise inflation can spiral out of control as happened with Argentina.
Bad - we pay interestVanilla said:
Good - others pay us interestVanilla said:
WIBSBOT said:
The point missed is that, contrary to what you said, tax doesn't stop when the book are balanced. They don't go down. Tax is a one way street and if a cut is made in one tax it's put up in another.
This is fine, this is the way it works. I'd be happy to have tax go up in one place and IHT abolished.
Where is the drive to save if it will be taken? Benefits are going up, pensions look unlikely. Should we quit our jobs now and live on the dole?
...and the wife has done something to earn the income of the father who dies? The wife can gain all of the money without paying any tax, but the children can't if there is no wife.
If we tax those who save and die how are we rewarding the most valuable of our society? by giving their money to poor people via handouts?
Does Jeremy parsons know what a meriocracy is??!?!?!?
from Wkia
Vanilla said:
You keep referring to it as a tax on successful people. It isn't. It is a tax on the child (to all intents and purposes). The child has not earned the money, the child has not saved the money. The child is not receiving the money because he is successful or valuable. How exactly does receiving something you haven't earned make you a valuable member of society? Of course achieving wealth without doing anything to earn it is anti-meritocratic!
Vanilla said:
Tax doesn't stop because progress doesn't stop - things will always need money spent on them. We elect a government to prioritise where we want the government to spend our money and to encourage growth in our economy. They make the decisions for us based on their mandate, and if they tax people too much, our economy suffers. It is a delicate balancing act between taxation and spending and with that means that you can't make everyone happy.
You think IHT is unfair and I think it is fair. You tell me where you want the tax to go up and I'll tell you if I think it's fair.Vanilla said:
Some good points, which is why the government has to get the balance right.Vanilla said:
WIBSBOT said:
Income tax and VAT. That way people are charged on what they earn when they are alive and what they spend and enable people to save without restriction.
Heirs can only do two things - invest or spend.
The amount made on income tax is not substantial - 2-3 Billion.
edit - meant to say IHT, not income tax!
Last edited:
Associate
Who came up with the idea that Children have done nothing that entitles them to inherit the Estate of their parents? What utter nonsense riddled with ignorance.
With respect to Property, not all Children are loafers who have Mummy do all the work. Some of us happened to kick in and do work around the House to maintain it's upkeep. Some of us even kicked in for the mortgage. What did the Inland revenue do to maintain its upkeep? Diddly squat, thats what.
And how about family Businesses?
Lets imagine, for instance, that your family has a long merchant history, and the family interest is passed down each generation to the eldest son, who has been taught and mentored by the father, from a very early age, working very hard, as to ensure that the family Business remains safely in the hands of someone capable of holding the reigns.
According to some people here, that person isn't entitled to it?
I do not see how it encourages meritocracy. It is a double edged sword which takes with one hand and gives with the other. It may well wipe out bad Estates, but it also wipes out good ones at the same time. If we are discussing the matter of being "efficient", then it would be best to let the bad Estates get wiped out themselves, which they will do, as opposed to destroying good ones purposely.
With respect to Property, not all Children are loafers who have Mummy do all the work. Some of us happened to kick in and do work around the House to maintain it's upkeep. Some of us even kicked in for the mortgage. What did the Inland revenue do to maintain its upkeep? Diddly squat, thats what.
And how about family Businesses?
Lets imagine, for instance, that your family has a long merchant history, and the family interest is passed down each generation to the eldest son, who has been taught and mentored by the father, from a very early age, working very hard, as to ensure that the family Business remains safely in the hands of someone capable of holding the reigns.
According to some people here, that person isn't entitled to it?
I do not see how it encourages meritocracy. It is a double edged sword which takes with one hand and gives with the other. It may well wipe out bad Estates, but it also wipes out good ones at the same time. If we are discussing the matter of being "efficient", then it would be best to let the bad Estates get wiped out themselves, which they will do, as opposed to destroying good ones purposely.
dirtydog said:
I've asked this before and it's not been addressed (earlier in the thread in somewhat more detail than below).
Do your children pay tax on everything they give them through their lives??? Why should you give your children (by you I don't mean you personaly) £200 per week to spend on Nike trainers / whatever tax free and my children who wore tesco trainers all their lives because I scrimped and save to provide a house for the family which in the region with live in is massively expensive have to pay tax because I died? House prices in the SE if anything have dropped in price over the last few years so lets not even assume that because of house prices i've made a profit on it.
This tax is NOT a meritocracy. It's giving my hard earned money to people via tax that had no hand in earning it whatsoever and taking away my choice about where MY money goes, if anything it punishes me for saving wisely and providing for my family instead of ******* it all up the wall all my life.
In the house case it will be the 4th time tax will have been paid on the same money. How can anyone even remotely believe that is a sane thing to do?
Well, personally, I don't really prefer any or no solution, since it won't affect me. The UK government stands zero chance of getting any IHT out of me. I'm not a UK taxpayer ..... or rather, not personal taxes anyway.dirtydog said:
However, my 'preferred' solution would actually be to index the IHT Threshold to house prices, since that's where the vast majority of the change in those falling foul of IHT is coming from. IHT used to only catch the wealthy. Now, it catches an ever-increasing number of working people.
That could indeed be argued, but I don't see IHT levels affecting it in any way. I don't see it as a solution to a problem that is rather more complex than that.dirtydog said:
That assumes the 18 year old can get a mortgage. If he's off to university, he won't be able to. When a tax forces someone to sell their family home and move to a cheaper part of the country, away from family and friends, justto pay it, then that tax is inequitable and reprehensible, and in my view, indefensible.dirtydog said: