So has everyone signed the Inheritance Tax petition?

dirtydog said:
Since when is the same money being taxed more than once, an alien concept? All money is taxed over and over, as it passes through different hands. You cannot oppose a tax on that basis alone or you would oppose all tax.
Click to expand...

yep..... but it doesnt mean I dont pay it, this petition is about disagreeing with one, maybe banning it isnt the only option, maybe it needs to be move to a higher level than it is to reflect the economy and house prices....
 
arfur said:
yep..... but it doesnt mean I dont pay it, this petition is about disagreeing with one, maybe banning it isnt the only option, maybe it needs to be move to a higher level than it is to reflect the economy and house prices....
Click to expand...

I think the threshold should move according to house prices or in someway a property could be excluded or put some kind of restriction of no sale of such property for x number of years. That would be a better solution to change IHT to go with times and economy growth, scrapping it isn't the solution.
 
I wonder how many people would sign this petition if the question was "do you want to raise income tax by several pence in exchange for banning inheritance tax"...
 
Raymond Lin said:
IHT it is another form of CGT, which no one is having any problems with. Just because it get labeled death tax doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

Well, except, as already pointed out, it has nothing to do with the people who are gaining the capital, and everything to do with the financial value of the person who is dead...

I'll accept it's a form of CGT when it starts being related to the situation of the person recieving the money and treated accordingly, until then, it's the death tax.
 
dirtydog said:
I wonder how many people would sign this petition if the question was "do you want to raise income tax by several pence in exchange for banning inheritance tax"...
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily want it banned, appropriate adjustment of the threshold to the equivilent of pre-labour levels would be fine.

It's gone from a tax that affects very few, to a tax that affects nearly anyone who owns a home, which was never the intention of it.

I would also have less objection to stealth tax increases (IHT and stamp duty being the most obvious) if there was actually anything to show for the increased tax take.
 
Dolph said:
Well, except, as already pointed out, it has nothing to do with the people who are gaining the capital, and everything to do with the financial value of the person who is dead...

I'll accept it's a form of CGT when it starts being related to the situation of the person recieving the money and treated accordingly, until then, it's the death tax.
Click to expand...

I've said it before, you can die with an estate worth £10,000,000,000,000,000,000, give that to charity.

The government gets a big fat Zero.

How is that a death tax ?


The way round it is to set up trusts, PET...etc. There are lots of ways round it, people should really use it.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I've said it before, you can die with an estate worth £10,000,000,000,000,000,000, give that to charity.

The government gets a big fat Zero.

How is that a death tax ?
Click to expand...

Charity is one of the very few exceptions... But why should I have to leave my estate to charity to prevent the government stealing it from my (future) children?

You haven't explained how it can be the equivilent of CGT when the tax due has absolutely nothing to do with the recipient...

As for there being ways round it, sure there are, but why should everyone have to make complicated plans simply because this government is greedy and deliberately let the increase in estate values dwarf the increases in the IHT threshold, dragging the vast majority of normal families owning a home within it's grasp?
 
Dolph said:
I don't necessarily want it banned, appropriate adjustment of the threshold to the equivilent of pre-labour levels would be fine.

It's gone from a tax that affects very few, to a tax that affects nearly anyone who owns a home, which was never the intention of it.
Click to expand...
I take your point, but are you saying that IHT should be indexed against house price inflation?

I would also have less objection to stealth tax increases (IHT and stamp duty being the most obvious) if there was actually anything to show for the increased tax take.
Click to expand...
I can't argue with that :)
 
dirtydog said:
I take your point, but are you saying that IHT should be indexed against house price inflation?
Click to expand...

Either that, or exempt the primary residence when valuing the estate for probate and IHT purposes. The main reason I object to IHT is that it frequently forces people to sell the family home in order to pay it (if the house is the main item of value in the estate, which it normally is). With the way house prices have risen over the last few years, even simple homes can be worth nearly or over the threshold in many parts of the country on their own, and the chances of someone having absolutely no other assests mean it rapidly approaches the point where you have to pay the tax, and it's a not insigificant amount at 40% of the estate value above the threshold.

Inheritance tax was never intended to penalise ordinary, hard working people, but because of the way house prices have changed and the IHT threshold hasn't, that's exactly what it does at the moment.
 
Dolph said:
Charity is one of the very few exceptions... But why should I have to leave my estate to charity to prevent the government stealing it from my (future) children?

You haven't explained how it can be the equivilent of CGT when the tax due has absolutely nothing to do with the recipient...

As for there being ways round it, sure there are, but why should everyone have to make complicated plans simply because this government is greedy and deliberately let the increase in estate values dwarf the increases in the IHT threshold, dragging the vast majority of normal families owning a home within it's grasp?
Click to expand...


The tax has 100% to do with its recipient, like i said before, charity = 0, children = IHT. As for making it complicated, not really, nothing can't be done with a few visits to a solicitor. Its not like there is anything bigger is there? If you have an estate so big that is over the threshold, and worry about your children, should you not do something about it rather than complain about it? Time spent wishing is time wasted.

I said in my previous post, the threshold should shift with economical growth, which should adjust to your average joe getting caught in it. But scrapping it is not a solution.
 
Raymond Lin said:
The tax has 100% to do with its recipient, like i said before, charity = 0, children = IHT. As for making it complicated, not really, nothing can't be done with a few visits to a solicitor. Its not like there is anything bigger is there? If you have an estate so big that is over the threshold, and worry about your children, should you not do something about it rather than complain about it? Time spent wishing is time wasted.
Click to expand...

The big issue is Labour making sure the threshold didn't keep pace with estate values. What you're suggesting is that everyone should keep making new wills depending on what measure to screw the populace over the government makes this time around... Might be good if you're a solicitor I suppose, sucks for pretty much everyone else.

And again, the tax has nothing to do with the recipient, I could write a will where at least some or most of the beneficiaries are entirely unaffected by any tax on the estate value in terms of what they get. So how is it a tax on the recipient again?

I said in my previous post, the threshold should shift with economical growth, which should adjust to your average joe getting caught in it. But scrapping it is not a solution.
Click to expand...

Which it hasn't done, hence the much stronger objections to IHT from far more people than has been the case in the past...
 
Raymond Lin said:
I've said it before, you can die with an estate worth £10,000,000,000,000,000,000, give that to charity.
Click to expand...
I find it amusing that along with Charities, if you leave your estate to a Political Party it is also exempt from tax...now how did that come about I wonder?;)
 
Personally I think it's a bit out of order, 40% is quite a hefty tax to be levying especially when people have already paid tax on their income.

Yes, there is a £285k threshold but what happens when the vast majority of a person's estate is in the value of their home? You can end up with a situation where the bequeathed are left with no option but to either sell the home or take out a mortgage on it.

Now, there are certain loopholes or ways in which we can prempt the impact of IHT. But the question is, should people really be forced down that path? Should pensioners have to put up with being bullied or put under pressure by their relatives to have to start messing about giving away gifts and suchlike before they pop their clogs?

Indexing against house price inflation or similar would be worth looking at. I bet if you compared the number of houses worth >£285k today, with the number of houses worth over £150k in the early-mid 90s, there would be far more. Yes I'm speculating here but bear in mind that the average house price has increased by well over 3.5x in that period, and even when adjusted for inflation it's still around 2.5x
 
IHT makes me sick. Its not a tax, its the government stealing your money. You cant tax money thats already been taxed yet somehow they manage to get away with it.

As for the petition, i know with the driving tax petition that came up Tony B actually stated along the lines of "we will make our own decision..", well, hold up, if your gonna make your own decisions regardless of the people.. .. your probably Prime Minister.. so it works out fine.
 
gord said:
IHT makes me sick. Its not a tax, its the government stealing your money. You cant tax money thats already been taxed yet somehow they manage to get away with it.
Click to expand...



Rubbish :) It is a common and well-established principle of taxation. You pay income taxes on your wages, and when you spend it in a shop you pay VAT on it. When you put fuel on your car, you pay fuel duty and VAT. And so on.

If people want to be against IHT then that is their prerogative, but please, do so from an informed point of view and not from one of ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom