Why should we have to pay inheritance tax?
- Thread starter Richdog
- Start date
It only applies to estates worth more than £285,000 though so a lot of people aren't going to be worried about it.
Anyone who is affected by it is still going to get a lot of money after tax so I don't see the point of moaning. It isn't as if their parents entire existance was to make their life easier and provide free money, although I'm sure some people see it that way.
Anyone who is affected by it is still going to get a lot of money after tax so I don't see the point of moaning. It isn't as if their parents entire existance was to make their life easier and provide free money, although I'm sure some people see it that way.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,433
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
loopstah said:
People see it as Death tax rather than inheritance tax, that is the "problem". At the end of the day, the benifitaries are going to get a windfall and it is them who are complaining. The dead are dead, the have no need for money.
Anyone who is worried, go talk to a solicitor and ask for ways to disrtibute the estate in advance so limit the effect of IHT.
loopstah said:
Our house is worth that now, gone up 60k in 3 years.
What a ludicrous statement, I bet you're the type who doesn't bat an eyelid no matter what the government introduce. Bend over with a smile on your face most likely. "Don't moan because the government takes 40% of your parents hard earned life-savings when they die". My dad is furious about having to pay that tax... by the time he dies I will have a family so will likely need that money for education of my children and to go towards making life better for those I love. No-one said that a parents entire existence is to make life easier and give you free money so that ststement is pointless, but isn't that what we all want for our family... a better life? If not then I would consider you a complete twerp. No point in moaning?
Give me a break... what you should be questioning is whether its fair for your parents to work their entire lives, pay their income tax, concil tax, god-knows-what-else-tax... only then for the government to get a substantial wad of "free money" when they die. That is adding sheer insult to injury in my view.
Last edited:
I can see why people are getting annoyed but the government needs to get money somehow and if they didn't take it after you die they would have to increase some other tax in order to get the money while you are living, I know which I would prefer.
Raymond Lin said:
Or a financial adviser to look at the possiblity of a Whole of life policy to allow any IHT liability to be covered upon death. (sorry, that's not aimed at you RL, just quoted you as it just followed on from what you were saying!)
loopstah said:
You might live in a cardboard box, but the rest of us dont. Many more people fall into this band than you obviously realise. Considering house prices vary a heck of lot depending on location you are basically saying it is OK to penalise some people simply because they live in a certain area.
For instance, here where i live you are lucky to find anywhere for less than 500,000.
IT is disgusting and has no place in our society other than a stealth tax to feed the greedy tax and spend government. That said however, i feel that the idiots in power will only find some other way to get the money back, they arent just going to let 6Bn slip by.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 3,286
- Location
- Westergate
TBh that money has already been through the tax system when it was earned, I think its mad that the government can tax more money out of it.
Richdog said:Just watched the news, and there was an article about a labour MP wanting inheritance tax abolished. I think this would be severely welcomed... obviously it's lucrative for the government, bringing approximately 3-6bn to their coffers each year... but why the hell should I have to just hand over a whopping 40% of the money that my father or mother have laboured their entire lives to leave me? In my opinion it's one of the biggest frauds ever conceived, and thinking that I will one day have to pay it makes my blood boil.
Has anyone suffered this yet? Got any tips for legally minimising the eventual damage this will cause me?
i don't how you expect the government to provide extra housing and infrastructure for migrant workers and failed asylum seekers, if we all don't put something in the kitty to help these poor unfortunates!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,433
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Someone posted these stats on another forum
"But how much more would you be taxed on your income?
Answer: not much at all.
IHT raises very little money for the Government compared to other taxes. The most recent figures available are for 2004-5 (from Table C8 of the 2006 Financial Statement and Budget Report), and show that the various taxes, duties and levies raised the following (in £billions):
Income tax (gross of tax credits) 127.2
National insurance contributions 78.1
Value added tax 73.0
Corporation tax 34.1
Petroleum revenue tax 1.3
Fuel duties 23.3
Capital gains tax 2.3
Inheritance tax 2.9
Stamp duties 9.0
Tobacco duties 8.1
Spirits duties 2.4
Wine duties 2.2
Beer and cider duties 3.3
Betting and gaming duties 1.4
Air passenger duty 0.9
Insurance premium tax 2.4
Landfill tax 0.7
Climate change levy 0.8
Aggregates levy 0.3
Customs duties and levies 2.2
So it raises only 2.9 billion per year. Not only that, it's one of the most expensive taxes to collect as well - only CGT and IT cost more to administer (see table 1, Annex F to the HMRC Annual Report 2004-5).
The big four taxes - IT, NI, CT and VAT, raised 108 times the amount IHT raised. So it would only need a very small incremental increase in any of those to make up the loss in revenue through abolition."
"But how much more would you be taxed on your income?
Answer: not much at all.
IHT raises very little money for the Government compared to other taxes. The most recent figures available are for 2004-5 (from Table C8 of the 2006 Financial Statement and Budget Report), and show that the various taxes, duties and levies raised the following (in £billions):
Income tax (gross of tax credits) 127.2
National insurance contributions 78.1
Value added tax 73.0
Corporation tax 34.1
Petroleum revenue tax 1.3
Fuel duties 23.3
Capital gains tax 2.3
Inheritance tax 2.9
Stamp duties 9.0
Tobacco duties 8.1
Spirits duties 2.4
Wine duties 2.2
Beer and cider duties 3.3
Betting and gaming duties 1.4
Air passenger duty 0.9
Insurance premium tax 2.4
Landfill tax 0.7
Climate change levy 0.8
Aggregates levy 0.3
Customs duties and levies 2.2
So it raises only 2.9 billion per year. Not only that, it's one of the most expensive taxes to collect as well - only CGT and IT cost more to administer (see table 1, Annex F to the HMRC Annual Report 2004-5).
The big four taxes - IT, NI, CT and VAT, raised 108 times the amount IHT raised. So it would only need a very small incremental increase in any of those to make up the loss in revenue through abolition."
loopstah said:
My parents are both retired teachers (so not exactly high earners - not heads or anything) yet their estate is worth probably double the current IHT limit. With the increases in house prices over the last couple of years the number of people affected by IHT has increased massively.
With regard to the "your parents work to support their children" line - tbh that's rot and a very immature attitude to life.
Your parents work to support their children while they are exactly that, children, but when you're an adult, surely you should be expected to stand on your own feet, rather than expecting a cushy handout?
Once you've left home your parents should be working to ensure a comfortable existence for the rest of their lives, not to make sure that their little darlings are kept in Gucci and Prada.
Lets also keep a sense of perspective here, you'll still be getting a BIG bung of money regardless.
I think that inheritance tax is completely justified. Someone receiving an enormous windfall from their relatives through no effort of their own should be rightfully taxed on it. I'm afraid I don't feel much sympathy for people forced to sell property worth thousands of pounds that the rest of the world doesn't get in the first place. Think about it from another point of view, as citizens of a country in general, should we really have the right to give our property solely to a particular person when there is such a need for resources in the country generally?
Equally, with people still complaining about public service workers not being paid enough, underfunding in public services here and there, the money has to come from somewhere. Not to say that I don't think the current government is woefully inefficient in some areas, but though inheritance tax can at first appear obscenely high, I don't think it would be at all sensible to abolish it.
Equally, with people still complaining about public service workers not being paid enough, underfunding in public services here and there, the money has to come from somewhere. Not to say that I don't think the current government is woefully inefficient in some areas, but though inheritance tax can at first appear obscenely high, I don't think it would be at all sensible to abolish it.
Inheritance tax exists as a means to achieving income equality. Other than that, there is no real moral justification for it. Despite it being a windfall, it has already been taxed once - when the deceased earnt it. As I'm in the 'rich get richer' category, I'm all for it.
robmiller said:
That’s not a bad option, but only if you're relative pop's there clogs quickly.
I think it was on Tonight with Trevor MacDonald whereby the government were making older people sell there houses to fund nursing care. So you have people who work hard all there life, buy houses, pay taxes, NI, invest in pensions and are penalised. On the other hand people who are in council houses, most likely pay less tax and NI don't have to dip into there pockets. You just have to ask what’s the point.
PinkPig said:
Say you worked for years and years, hardly spending a penny, in the hope that you could afford to help your children fund their own house, and give your grandchildren a decent upbringing. Now include inheritance tax and 40% of your own hard earnt money is gone. Would you rather see it spread between thousands of potential dole scroungers, so they may all get an extra 0.05p each? Or would you rather your own child had a nice start in life to make things a little easier or possibly have something to fall back on if they end up in financial difficulties. They then may possibly do the same for their children. Hmmmm I think i know which one you would choose if you were in that situation.
Von Luck said:
No, that's rot. You're essentially saying that it's 'ok' for the government to take 40% simply because as an adult you're "supposed to stand on your own two feet. I don't know about you but the thought of leaving a good sum to my heirs is a nice feeling, and if you aren't bothered by the government taking 40% of what is rightfully your childrens then there must be something seriously wrong with you.
I'll repeat what I have said in two posts now, the money they leave can make your familys life substantially better... whether it be education, home or whatever, the difference you can make for those you love is unimaginable. When we receive the money we will have a ton of responsibility in our lives; debts, mortgages, etc etc. There is no shame in a parent easing that burden for their children as much as possible without comprimising their own quality of life. If you see that as 'wrong' somehow then i'm not sure what to say to you... in fact I find it quite hard to believe that you are ok with 40% (almost half!) of everything you have saved going to the government when you die and your family being left shortchanged, despite you having been taxed for all of your money already during your life. Who do you think needs it most? Simply shocking... there's no other way to describe that attitude.
PinkPig said:
And you! What planet are you on?
Last edited: