Why should we have to pay inheritance tax?

Goberpiles316 said:
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.

Nail. Hit. Head.
 
Von Luck said:
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.

It is nothing to do whatsoever with dressing your kids in Gucci etc. Imagine if you had a son that wasn't particularly bright, yet had the determination to just get by in life. Now factor him having two kids and struggling to be able to give them a decent upbringing. The inheritance he recieves might massively help the whole family, and enable your grandchildren to have a comfortable home, decent education and make a good start in life.
 
Bunka said:
It is nothing to do whatsoever with dressing your kids in Gucci etc. Imagine if you had a son that wasn't particularly bright, yet had the determination to just get by in life. Now factor him having two kids and struggling to be able to give them a decent upbringing. The inheritance he recieves might massively help the whole family, and enable your grandchildren to have a comfortable home, decent education and make a good start in life.

They'll still get an inheritance - just one that has been reduced following taxation. I don't see the problem?
 
trouble is unless the government stop spending so much (which they wont do) then the tax would just be shifted else where.

That's the problem, you can't just get rid of a tax, it has to be replaced.
 
Von Luck said:
While greed is to be applauded? :)

Greed? Sheesh if that's what you think then I genuinely feel for you... talk about completely missing the point in every conceivable way. The smiley you added afterwards makes it even mroe tragic.
 
Von Luck said:
While greed is to be applauded? :)

How is it greed? You worked your arse off for that money and want your grandchildren to do well in life. Why should somebody who has done absolutely nothing for their whole life recieve your money??
 
Von Luck said:

Read it again, I'm of the same opinion as you are.

Richdog 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.

60% of £285,000 is a good sum, even with 3 kids it's £57,000 each. How much free money do you want?

Richdog said:
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 have to rely on your parents dying to ease your financial burdens then you obviously shouldn't be allowed money in the first place. Like I said 60% of anything over £285,000 is still a lot of money and should be lot of help unless you're seriously over your head with debt.

Personally I would rather my children be responsible and capable of managing on their own two feet once they become adults than eagerly waiting for me to die so they can receive a wad of money they haven't worked a minute for.

Even with IHT you still get a lot of money, it's just greedy wanting more, a lot of people get nothing or end up paying out when their parents die and they manage to live a normal life.
 
Imagine a situation posted earlier:

You live with parents. You have no real money of your own. Your parents don't have a significant amount of money either. The house, though, is worth a fair bit. Probably wasn't when they bought it, but the IHT nil rate band hasn't risen at the same rate as house pricing. You live in a fairly decent area, and your house is now worth £400,000.

Your parents die. They leave you the house (and a few grand they have in the bank - nothing substansial).

Now, not only have your parents just died... you probably now owe Gordon Brown £50,000 - which you don't have. How is that fair?
 
Last edited:
loopstah said:
60% of £285,000 is a good sum, even with 3 kids it's £57,000 each. How much free money do you want?

I want the full amount that my father worked his arse off for and that he WANTS me to have. Why the frick would you want 40% of your estate going to the givernment when you've already paid your income tax! Do you think I want 40% of what I earn going to to the government when I die? No, I want to give my fmaily the best opportunities in life, and I damn well expect them to do the same for their children and so on ad infinitum.

If you have to rely on your parents dying to ease your financial burdens then you obviously shouldn't be allowed money in the first place.

What a ridiculous statement, spoken like a complete muppet!

Like I said 60% of anything over £285,000 is still a lot of money and should be lot of help unless you're seriously over your head with debt.

Or unless you want to get that dream home you coulodn't otherwise afford. Or unless you start your own business. Or pay for expensive medical fees/treatment. You must be incredibly short-sighted if you think that the sort of money we're talking about is going to last a lifetime.

Personally I would rather my children be responsible and capable of managing on their own two feet once they become adults than eagerly waiting for me to die so they can receive a wad of money they haven't worked a minute for.

Even with IHT you still get a lot of money, it's just greedy wanting more, a lot of people get nothing or end up paying out when their parents die and they manage to live a normal life.

Another one who completely and tragically misses the point.
 
Last edited:
csmager said:
Imagine a situation posted earlier:

You live with parents. You have no real money of your own. Your parents don't have a significant amount of money either. The house, though, is worth a fair bit. Probably wasn't when they bought it, but the IHT nil rate band hasn't risen at the same rate as house pricing. You live in a fairly decent area, and your house is now worth £400,000.

Your parents die. They leave you the house (and a few grand they have in the bank - nothing substansial).

Now, not only have your parents just died... you now owe Gordon Brown £160,000 - which you don't have. How is that fair?

You get a bridging loan, pay the IHT, sell the house, repay the loan and then buy yourself a new, smaller house, mortgage free, with the circa £240k (minus loan payments) in cash that you now have. You're then in a far better financial position that the vast majority of people.
 
csmager said:
Imagine a situation posted earlier:

You live with parents. You have no real money of your own. Your parents don't have a significant amount of money either. The house, though, is worth a fair bit. Probably wasn't when they bought it, but the IHT nil rate band hasn't risen at the same rate as house pricing. You live in a fairly decent area, and your house is now worth £400,000.

Your parents die. They leave you the house (and a few grand they have in the bank - nothing substansial).

Now, not only have your parents just died... you now owe Gordon Brown £160,000 - which you don't have. How is that fair?

ahem....assign the house to the child so the house it is a joint tenancy, this should pass outside the law of intestacy and belong to the other named owner without tax. - i think....
 
Von Luck said:
You get a bridging loan, pay the IHT, sell the house and then buy yourself a new, smaller house, mortgage free, with the £240k in cash you now have. You're then in a far better financial position that the vast majority of people.

....but have potentially had to give up what has been your family's home for 3 generations to fund the government.
 
Raymond Lin said:
ahem....assign the house to the child so the house it is a joint tenancy, this should pass outside the law of intestacy and belong to the other named owner without tax. - i think....
Yes, it would. But I'd guess in the situation that I was describing (still living with parents), they probably weren't really thinking they were going to die next week... Unless this fictitious person was still living with parents when they died of old age.
 
I don't think there should be inheritance tax, simply because its money the person whos died already paid tax on, and in most cases worked very hard for.

Its just another example of labour eroding middle england as stephen byers said when he was speaking about abolishing IHT, hopefully at some point the electorate will vote labour out.

My parents have already started making provisions to minimise the IHT on their estate, and I've already told them I'd rather they gave it to charity than it end up in the governments coffers, for them to waste.
 
Von Luck said:
You get a bridging loan, pay the IHT, sell the house, repay the loan and then buy yourself a new, smaller house, mortgage free, with the circa £240k (minus loan payments) in cash that you now have. You're then in a far better financial position that the vast majority of people.

Why SHOULD you have to have a smaller house though. Your dad worked hard for a decent house and wants you to have it. Why the hell should it be sold and you move into a smaller house just because it is the right thing to do in giving 40% of it to the government. Your attitude is on a similar line to communism. Spread out all the wealth and everyone is happy. It never works like that.
 
Bri said:
....but have potentially had to give up what has been your family's home for 3 generations to fund the government.

And in some cases your job too especially people from farming backgrounds.
 
Back
Top Bottom