FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Labour policy?
Labour policy?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadia whittome MP says we need "ambition for the future, taxing the rich". How does taxing success relate to ambition for the future?" Rich and successful are not the same thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadia whittome MP says we need "ambition for the future, taxing the rich". How does taxing success relate to ambition for the future? Rich and successful are not the same thing. " Have Labour set out their plans to tax wealth yet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadia whittome MP says we need "ambition for the future, taxing the rich". How does taxing success relate to ambition for the future? Rich and successful are not the same thing. Have Labour set out their plans to tax wealth yet?" No idea. Also no idea why you're asking me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadia whittome MP says we need "ambition for the future, taxing the rich". How does taxing success relate to ambition for the future? Rich and successful are not the same thing. Have Labour set out their plans to tax wealth yet? No idea. Also no idea why you're asking me." I thought you may know. Is that OK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadia whittome MP says we need "ambition for the future, taxing the rich". How does taxing success relate to ambition for the future? Rich and successful are not the same thing. " No they're not but success leads to wealth so I don't understand why penalising success is the way to proceed. Surely rewarding success is a better way than rewarding failure | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadia whittome MP says we need "ambition for the future, taxing the rich". How does taxing success relate to ambition for the future? Rich and successful are not the same thing. Have Labour set out their plans to tax wealth yet? No idea. Also no idea why you're asking me. I thought you may know. Is that OK?" It is okay. I have absolutely no idea.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadia whittome MP says we need "ambition for the future, taxing the rich". How does taxing success relate to ambition for the future? Rich and successful are not the same thing. No they're not but success leads to wealth so I don't understand why penalising success is the way to proceed. Surely rewarding success is a better way than rewarding failure " No, you're definitely confused here. Success is not the same as wealth. You can be successful and poor, or a failure and rich. There is no such thing as tax on "success". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadia whittome MP says we need "ambition for the future, taxing the rich". How does taxing success relate to ambition for the future? Rich and successful are not the same thing. Have Labour set out their plans to tax wealth yet? No idea. Also no idea why you're asking me. I thought you may know. Is that OK? It is okay. I have absolutely no idea. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know if Labour have set out their plans to tax wealth yet?" I googled it and found a yougov survey showing 3/4 of British people would support a wealth tax. And a Telegraph article suggesting that even "Labour strongholds despise" it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know if Labour have set out their plans to tax wealth yet? I googled it and found a yougov survey showing 3/4 of British people would support a wealth tax. And a Telegraph article suggesting that even "Labour strongholds despise" it. " I seen both of those. They don't tell us of Labour's actual plans though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know if Labour have set out their plans to tax wealth yet? I googled it and found a yougov survey showing 3/4 of British people would support a wealth tax. And a Telegraph article suggesting that even "Labour strongholds despise" it. I seen both of those. They don't tell us of Labour's actual plans though" Nope. Still, real information hardly matters these days. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know if Labour have set out their plans to tax wealth yet? I googled it and found a yougov survey showing 3/4 of British people would support a wealth tax. And a Telegraph article suggesting that even "Labour strongholds despise" it. I seen both of those. They don't tell us of Labour's actual plans though Nope. Still, real information hardly matters these days. " It does, maybe not the Telegraph. Ut it obviously matters. I did notice in the YouGov poll that 2/3 of Labour supporters and hearly 1/2 of Conservative supporters support a 'wealth tax' on 500k. 500k is far from wealthy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know if Labour have set out their plans to tax wealth yet? I googled it and found a yougov survey showing 3/4 of British people would support a wealth tax. And a Telegraph article suggesting that even "Labour strongholds despise" it. I seen both of those. They don't tell us of Labour's actual plans though Nope. Still, real information hardly matters these days. It does, maybe not the Telegraph. Ut it obviously matters. I did notice in the YouGov poll that 2/3 of Labour supporters and hearly 1/2 of Conservative supporters support a 'wealth tax' on 500k. 500k is far from wealthy." Sorry, I mean obviously it matters. But to the majority of the electorate, it doesn't. Does it say how the 500k is defined? Assets, cash, income etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm normally quite supportive of a lower tax ethos. However, we as a society should be more inclined to tax parity....eg: if you earn and reside in this country, you should pay. If the ultra rich threaten to leave, then HMRC should ensthat they pay their airport tax as well! Wasn't non dom status conceived for non residents, instead just for transient workers who were based abroad and due to their work, were required to spend some time here? Happy for someonewho actuallyknows as opposedto a google researcherto correct me if I am incorrect. (Actors working at Pinewood or architects working on a project come to mind). " It’s from colonial times to encourage foreign trade by U.K. citizens in far flung parts of the empire. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm normally quite supportive of a lower tax ethos. However, we as a society should be more inclined to tax parity....eg: if you earn and reside in this country, you should pay. If the ultra rich threaten to leave, then HMRC should ensthat they pay their airport tax as well! Wasn't non dom status conceived for non residents, instead just for transient workers who were based abroad and due to their work, were required to spend some time here? Happy for someonewho actuallyknows as opposedto a google researcherto correct me if I am incorrect. (Actors working at Pinewood or architects working on a project come to mind). It’s from colonial times to encourage foreign trade by U.K. citizens in far flung parts of the empire. " Let's not forget those who have skills this country needs! Encouraging those to come and work here and not be discouraged by our tax rates and providing skills is essential to the success of many UK industries. But don't let that get in the way of any personal views. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadia whittome MP says we need "ambition for the future, taxing the rich". How does taxing success relate to ambition for the future?" Do you have this full quote so as to understand the context? Wealth is not the same as success. Inheriting money is luck, not an achievement. If you earn it, pay the same as everyone else, don't expect special treatment. Do you have a different take on those points? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadia whittome MP says we need "ambition for the future, taxing the rich". How does taxing success relate to ambition for the future?" What is the actual Labour policy rather than the opinion of one MP? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If taxing the wealthy is all that Labour have got then we are in big trouble . " Or don't tax them and hope they piss down on the plebs, with trickle down economics. Instead of hiding it in a offshore trust or foreign property. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The mega rich do not pay tax They should pay tax at the same rate as everyone else . No more but certainly no less . Lord Bamford’s family received £170m last year in revenue. Guess how much tax they paid? Answers on a very small if not invisible post card please. Viscount Rothemere owner of the “anti benefits” Daily Mail lives in Wiltshire and pays guess how much tax as a non Dom? Again answers on an invisible post card will suffice!! Guess who funded the Brexit campaign? Clue , read the above . These are the people the Labour Party are talking about. Not hard workers or successful business men who are tax payers. It’s the moral thieves at the top of our financial pyramid. A cleaner working for the NHS on minimum wage pays more personal tax as a percentage of income than the owner of the daily Mail! Maybe they actually pay more gross tax too. Anyone who defends that ratio is either mega rich or incredibly gullible. "
Tory Media fear machine to distract you from disastrous mismanagement, lies, corruption and hate policies. Don’t fall for Tory smears. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The centre-left Norwegian Goverment recently imposed a wealth tax. It led to many millionaires and billionaires relocating their businesses abroad. Switzerland being a favoured destination It's divided opinion, as its stifled business investment, especially start-ups." Norway has had a wealth tax for a century. A higher rate was recently introduced. So, actually the discussion is around it going too far. They are, apparently, about to impose an exit tax too. This may all be going too far, but the starting point is way beyond what the UK currently has. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know if Labour have set out their plans to tax wealth yet? I googled it and found a yougov survey showing 3/4 of British people would support a wealth tax. And a Telegraph article suggesting that even "Labour strongholds despise" it. I seen both of those. They don't tell us of Labour's actual plans though Nope. Still, real information hardly matters these days. It does, maybe not the Telegraph. Ut it obviously matters. I did notice in the YouGov poll that 2/3 of Labour supporters and hearly 1/2 of Conservative supporters support a 'wealth tax' on 500k. 500k is far from wealthy. Sorry, I mean obviously it matters. But to the majority of the electorate, it doesn't. Does it say how the 500k is defined? Assets, cash, income etc. " It doesn't define anything unfortunately. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am totally FOR closing tax loopholes including the abuse of the Non Dom rules. Live here, pay tax here. Earn/generate income/revenue here (company and individuals) pay tax here. Temporary visitor normally based/living in another country but in the UK for a defined period of time working on a project. Pay tax in home country. I am very unsure about the merits of a wealth tax. The detail would matter. As too would the threshold and manner in which it would be collected. Due to house price increases there are many people in the UK who are asset rich but cash/income poor (the proverbial old widow who owns a house in London that was bought in the 1960s for £5000 and now worth £2m). The tax man will get their cut when the widow dies through IHT so why should they be subject of a wealth tax when alive? Close loopholes re inheritance and offshore (tax free) trusts owning assets to ensure right amounts of IHT applied. Certainly NEVER apply any form of wealth tax on a family home/primary residence. Also if the purchase of a home(s) has been financed via debt (a mortgage) then total cost of that debt (which has been paid through post tax net earnings) should also discounted against any calculation for a wealth tax. Sure there is more but I cannot see how a wealth tax can be fair?" I would agree that a wealth tax is tricky as valuation is difficult to assess and can vary. However, they managed until now in Norway. Inheritance tax makes sense to me, as much as it seems to upset people. Your children have not earned anything through their hard work but gain advantage for themselves and their children. They have already gaoned from the direct benefits in growing up with wealthy parents. They will still get a benefit, just a smaller one. If you have earned it, then spend it without restriction on whatever you want in the economy whilst you are alive. If you have too much to spend then it answers its own question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am totally FOR closing tax loopholes including the abuse of the Non Dom rules. Live here, pay tax here. Earn/generate income/revenue here (company and individuals) pay tax here. Temporary visitor normally based/living in another country but in the UK for a defined period of time working on a project. Pay tax in home country. I am very unsure about the merits of a wealth tax. The detail would matter. As too would the threshold and manner in which it would be collected. Due to house price increases there are many people in the UK who are asset rich but cash/income poor (the proverbial old widow who owns a house in London that was bought in the 1960s for £5000 and now worth £2m). The tax man will get their cut when the widow dies through IHT so why should they be subject of a wealth tax when alive? Close loopholes re inheritance and offshore (tax free) trusts owning assets to ensure right amounts of IHT applied. Certainly NEVER apply any form of wealth tax on a family home/primary residence. Also if the purchase of a home(s) has been financed via debt (a mortgage) then total cost of that debt (which has been paid through post tax net earnings) should also discounted against any calculation for a wealth tax. Sure there is more but I cannot see how a wealth tax can be fair? I would agree that a wealth tax is tricky as valuation is difficult to assess and can vary. However, they managed until now in Norway. Inheritance tax makes sense to me, as much as it seems to upset people. Your children have not earned anything through their hard work but gain advantage for themselves and their children. They have already gaoned from the direct benefits in growing up with wealthy parents. They will still get a benefit, just a smaller one. If you have earned it, then spend it without restriction on whatever you want in the economy whilst you are alive. If you have too much to spend then it answers its own question." I'm one who thinks inheritance tax is out of step and should be reassessed ASAP. The rate is far to high and is not a reflection of property values. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm normally quite supportive of a lower tax ethos. However, we as a society should be more inclined to tax parity....eg: if you earn and reside in this country, you should pay. If the ultra rich threaten to leave, then HMRC should ensthat they pay their airport tax as well! Wasn't non dom status conceived for non residents, instead just for transient workers who were based abroad and due to their work, were required to spend some time here? Happy for someonewho actuallyknows as opposedto a google researcherto correct me if I am incorrect. (Actors working at Pinewood or architects working on a project come to mind). It’s from colonial times to encourage foreign trade by U.K. citizens in far flung parts of the empire. Let's not forget those who have skills this country needs! Encouraging those to come and work here and not be discouraged by our tax rates and providing skills is essential to the success of many UK industries. But don't let that get in the way of any personal views. " They will be paid enough including tax so that answers question to attract them in the first place. Paying tax will be the employers issue in regard the payment rate . If they are entrepreneurs they will be able to avoid any serious tax with all the allowances on offer . The idea that tax stops investment is exaggerated. Most SMEs can avoid corporation tax if they chose. The biggest companies can just move cash at will to avoid any excessive tax in a specific country . ( Starbucks Google etc ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am totally FOR closing tax loopholes including the abuse of the Non Dom rules. Live here, pay tax here. Earn/generate income/revenue here (company and individuals) pay tax here. Temporary visitor normally based/living in another country but in the UK for a defined period of time working on a project. Pay tax in home country. I am very unsure about the merits of a wealth tax. The detail would matter. As too would the threshold and manner in which it would be collected. Due to house price increases there are many people in the UK who are asset rich but cash/income poor (the proverbial old widow who owns a house in London that was bought in the 1960s for £5000 and now worth £2m). The tax man will get their cut when the widow dies through IHT so why should they be subject of a wealth tax when alive? Close loopholes re inheritance and offshore (tax free) trusts owning assets to ensure right amounts of IHT applied. Certainly NEVER apply any form of wealth tax on a family home/primary residence. Also if the purchase of a home(s) has been financed via debt (a mortgage) then total cost of that debt (which has been paid through post tax net earnings) should also discounted against any calculation for a wealth tax. Sure there is more but I cannot see how a wealth tax can be fair? I would agree that a wealth tax is tricky as valuation is difficult to assess and can vary. However, they managed until now in Norway. Inheritance tax makes sense to me, as much as it seems to upset people. Your children have not earned anything through their hard work but gain advantage for themselves and their children. They have already gaoned from the direct benefits in growing up with wealthy parents. They will still get a benefit, just a smaller one. If you have earned it, then spend it without restriction on whatever you want in the economy whilst you are alive. If you have too much to spend then it answers its own question. I'm one who thinks inheritance tax is out of step and should be reassessed ASAP. The rate is far to high and is not a reflection of property values. " Why is the rate too high? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am totally FOR closing tax loopholes including the abuse of the Non Dom rules. Live here, pay tax here. Earn/generate income/revenue here (company and individuals) pay tax here. Temporary visitor normally based/living in another country but in the UK for a defined period of time working on a project. Pay tax in home country. I am very unsure about the merits of a wealth tax. The detail would matter. As too would the threshold and manner in which it would be collected. Due to house price increases there are many people in the UK who are asset rich but cash/income poor (the proverbial old widow who owns a house in London that was bought in the 1960s for £5000 and now worth £2m). The tax man will get their cut when the widow dies through IHT so why should they be subject of a wealth tax when alive? Close loopholes re inheritance and offshore (tax free) trusts owning assets to ensure right amounts of IHT applied. Certainly NEVER apply any form of wealth tax on a family home/primary residence. Also if the purchase of a home(s) has been financed via debt (a mortgage) then total cost of that debt (which has been paid through post tax net earnings) should also discounted against any calculation for a wealth tax. Sure there is more but I cannot see how a wealth tax can be fair? I would agree that a wealth tax is tricky as valuation is difficult to assess and can vary. However, they managed until now in Norway. Inheritance tax makes sense to me, as much as it seems to upset people. Your children have not earned anything through their hard work but gain advantage for themselves and their children. They have already gaoned from the direct benefits in growing up with wealthy parents. They will still get a benefit, just a smaller one. If you have earned it, then spend it without restriction on whatever you want in the economy whilst you are alive. If you have too much to spend then it answers its own question. I'm one who thinks inheritance tax is out of step and should be reassessed ASAP. The rate is far to high and is not a reflection of property values. Why is the rate too high?" 40% on anything over 325K is the norm, I know it can rise to 500k if the circumstances are right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t have any specific points on this but the principal of taxing unearned income through inheritance tax on property must be considered. A formula for the mortgage and interest payment to be allowed before tax by all means but luck of the draw on location making some houses worth 20-30 times their original value is not earned wealth. That should be considered for tax. Much like taxing profits on shares . You buy and if you’re lucky they go up and your taxed. If they go down you can write it off against other taxes. I don’t want to pretend I know how it would work as I don’t but the principal should be considered. Landlords with hundreds of houses pay tax why not a single owner? It’s the reverse of wanting the very rich to pay their fair share which I spout on about a lot. I can’t have it both ways. I do not agree at all with taxing a property while the owner is still resident . Only on departure or death. A poor person could live in a very valuable house. " We already do pay tax on our homes when we die through inheritance tax. We also pay tax when we buy a house through stamp duty. Why does that need a wealth tax on top? I can see why that would apply to second homes and property portfolios but I do not agree that it should apply to primary residence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t have any specific points on this but the principal of taxing unearned income through inheritance tax on property must be considered. A formula for the mortgage and interest payment to be allowed before tax by all means but luck of the draw on location making some houses worth 20-30 times their original value is not earned wealth. That should be considered for tax. Much like taxing profits on shares . You buy and if you’re lucky they go up and your taxed. If they go down you can write it off against other taxes. I don’t want to pretend I know how it would work as I don’t but the principal should be considered. Landlords with hundreds of houses pay tax why not a single owner? It’s the reverse of wanting the very rich to pay their fair share which I spout on about a lot. I can’t have it both ways. I do not agree at all with taxing a property while the owner is still resident . Only on departure or death. A poor person could live in a very valuable house. We already do pay tax on our homes when we die through inheritance tax. We also pay tax when we buy a house through stamp duty. Why does that need a wealth tax on top? I can see why that would apply to second homes and property portfolios but I do not agree that it should apply to primary residence." Yes I didn’t make my case clear. I was being specific to property. I’m arguing for a more stringent approach on unearned income. Exclusions such as gifting 7 years in advance should not exclude the liability. It’s avoidance in another form. So I cannot complain about avoidance by others and then support avoidance through family connections. Rothermere is a non Dom through a family relation . If someone dies or goes into a care home it’s no longer their primary residence. The property at present is more than likely used for care so that deals with the cash another way. I don’t agree with that either . It should be free for all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am totally FOR closing tax loopholes including the abuse of the Non Dom rules. Live here, pay tax here. Earn/generate income/revenue here (company and individuals) pay tax here. Temporary visitor normally based/living in another country but in the UK for a defined period of time working on a project. Pay tax in home country. I am very unsure about the merits of a wealth tax. The detail would matter. As too would the threshold and manner in which it would be collected. Due to house price increases there are many people in the UK who are asset rich but cash/income poor (the proverbial old widow who owns a house in London that was bought in the 1960s for £5000 and now worth £2m). The tax man will get their cut when the widow dies through IHT so why should they be subject of a wealth tax when alive? Close loopholes re inheritance and offshore (tax free) trusts owning assets to ensure right amounts of IHT applied. Certainly NEVER apply any form of wealth tax on a family home/primary residence. Also if the purchase of a home(s) has been financed via debt (a mortgage) then total cost of that debt (which has been paid through post tax net earnings) should also discounted against any calculation for a wealth tax. Sure there is more but I cannot see how a wealth tax can be fair? I would agree that a wealth tax is tricky as valuation is difficult to assess and can vary. However, they managed until now in Norway. Inheritance tax makes sense to me, as much as it seems to upset people. Your children have not earned anything through their hard work but gain advantage for themselves and their children. They have already gaoned from the direct benefits in growing up with wealthy parents. They will still get a benefit, just a smaller one. If you have earned it, then spend it without restriction on whatever you want in the economy whilst you are alive. If you have too much to spend then it answers its own question. I'm one who thinks inheritance tax is out of step and should be reassessed ASAP. The rate is far to high and is not a reflection of property values. Why is the rate too high? 40% on anything over 325K is the norm, I know it can rise to 500k if the circumstances are right. " Why is 40% "too high"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am totally FOR closing tax loopholes including the abuse of the Non Dom rules. Live here, pay tax here. Earn/generate income/revenue here (company and individuals) pay tax here. Temporary visitor normally based/living in another country but in the UK for a defined period of time working on a project. Pay tax in home country. I am very unsure about the merits of a wealth tax. The detail would matter. As too would the threshold and manner in which it would be collected. Due to house price increases there are many people in the UK who are asset rich but cash/income poor (the proverbial old widow who owns a house in London that was bought in the 1960s for £5000 and now worth £2m). The tax man will get their cut when the widow dies through IHT so why should they be subject of a wealth tax when alive? Close loopholes re inheritance and offshore (tax free) trusts owning assets to ensure right amounts of IHT applied. Certainly NEVER apply any form of wealth tax on a family home/primary residence. Also if the purchase of a home(s) has been financed via debt (a mortgage) then total cost of that debt (which has been paid through post tax net earnings) should also discounted against any calculation for a wealth tax. Sure there is more but I cannot see how a wealth tax can be fair? I would agree that a wealth tax is tricky as valuation is difficult to assess and can vary. However, they managed until now in Norway. Inheritance tax makes sense to me, as much as it seems to upset people. Your children have not earned anything through their hard work but gain advantage for themselves and their children. They have already gaoned from the direct benefits in growing up with wealthy parents. They will still get a benefit, just a smaller one. If you have earned it, then spend it without restriction on whatever you want in the economy whilst you are alive. If you have too much to spend then it answers its own question. I'm one who thinks inheritance tax is out of step and should be reassessed ASAP. The rate is far to high and is not a reflection of property values. Why is the rate too high? 40% on anything over 325K is the norm, I know it can rise to 500k if the circumstances are right. Why is 40% "too high"?" I'm not sure of your circumstances, but if you have an estate you have paid tax on house, cars, savings and many other assets, with money you were taxed on and you are thinking about leaving it to a child. 40% is too much. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am totally FOR closing tax loopholes including the abuse of the Non Dom rules. Live here, pay tax here. Earn/generate income/revenue here (company and individuals) pay tax here. Temporary visitor normally based/living in another country but in the UK for a defined period of time working on a project. Pay tax in home country. I am very unsure about the merits of a wealth tax. The detail would matter. As too would the threshold and manner in which it would be collected. Due to house price increases there are many people in the UK who are asset rich but cash/income poor (the proverbial old widow who owns a house in London that was bought in the 1960s for £5000 and now worth £2m). The tax man will get their cut when the widow dies through IHT so why should they be subject of a wealth tax when alive? Close loopholes re inheritance and offshore (tax free) trusts owning assets to ensure right amounts of IHT applied. Certainly NEVER apply any form of wealth tax on a family home/primary residence. Also if the purchase of a home(s) has been financed via debt (a mortgage) then total cost of that debt (which has been paid through post tax net earnings) should also discounted against any calculation for a wealth tax. Sure there is more but I cannot see how a wealth tax can be fair? I would agree that a wealth tax is tricky as valuation is difficult to assess and can vary. However, they managed until now in Norway. Inheritance tax makes sense to me, as much as it seems to upset people. Your children have not earned anything through their hard work but gain advantage for themselves and their children. They have already gaoned from the direct benefits in growing up with wealthy parents. They will still get a benefit, just a smaller one. If you have earned it, then spend it without restriction on whatever you want in the economy whilst you are alive. If you have too much to spend then it answers its own question. I'm one who thinks inheritance tax is out of step and should be reassessed ASAP. The rate is far to high and is not a reflection of property values. Why is the rate too high? 40% on anything over 325K is the norm, I know it can rise to 500k if the circumstances are right. Why is 40% "too high"? I'm not sure of your circumstances, but if you have an estate you have paid tax on house, cars, savings and many other assets, with money you were taxed on and you are thinking about leaving it to a child. 40% is too much. " Why? As I said before, they haven't worked hard to earn it. This entrenches unearned wealth that creates a gap that is very hard to close as time goes on and the advantage is compounded generation after generation. Spend it on yourself freely. Your children have already benefitted from a more prosperous upbringing. They will still inherit a whopping 60% due to pure luck. The equivalent, for them, of a lottery win. I hope that my father leaves spending his last penny on himself. My success is having paid my own way after the advantages that I was given. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am totally FOR closing tax loopholes including the abuse of the Non Dom rules. Live here, pay tax here. Earn/generate income/revenue here (company and individuals) pay tax here. Temporary visitor normally based/living in another country but in the UK for a defined period of time working on a project. Pay tax in home country. I am very unsure about the merits of a wealth tax. The detail would matter. As too would the threshold and manner in which it would be collected. Due to house price increases there are many people in the UK who are asset rich but cash/income poor (the proverbial old widow who owns a house in London that was bought in the 1960s for £5000 and now worth £2m). The tax man will get their cut when the widow dies through IHT so why should they be subject of a wealth tax when alive? Close loopholes re inheritance and offshore (tax free) trusts owning assets to ensure right amounts of IHT applied. Certainly NEVER apply any form of wealth tax on a family home/primary residence. Also if the purchase of a home(s) has been financed via debt (a mortgage) then total cost of that debt (which has been paid through post tax net earnings) should also discounted against any calculation for a wealth tax. Sure there is more but I cannot see how a wealth tax can be fair? I would agree that a wealth tax is tricky as valuation is difficult to assess and can vary. However, they managed until now in Norway. Inheritance tax makes sense to me, as much as it seems to upset people. Your children have not earned anything through their hard work but gain advantage for themselves and their children. They have already gaoned from the direct benefits in growing up with wealthy parents. They will still get a benefit, just a smaller one. If you have earned it, then spend it without restriction on whatever you want in the economy whilst you are alive. If you have too much to spend then it answers its own question. I'm one who thinks inheritance tax is out of step and should be reassessed ASAP. The rate is far to high and is not a reflection of property values. Why is the rate too high? 40% on anything over 325K is the norm, I know it can rise to 500k if the circumstances are right. Why is 40% "too high"? I'm not sure of your circumstances, but if you have an estate you have paid tax on house, cars, savings and many other assets, with money you were taxed on and you are thinking about leaving it to a child. 40% is too much. Why? As I said before, they haven't worked hard to earn it. This entrenches unearned wealth that creates a gap that is very hard to close as time goes on and the advantage is compounded generation after generation. Spend it on yourself freely. Your children have already benefitted from a more prosperous upbringing. They will still inherit a whopping 60% due to pure luck. The equivalent, for them, of a lottery win. I hope that my father leaves spending his last penny on himself. My success is having paid my own way after the advantages that I was given." I'm not against inheritance tax. I would argue that you shouldn't be mixing up any wealth my parents have with me 'having a more prosperous upbringing'. My parents had 5 kids and barely had 2 pennies to rub together when we were growing up. They're much much more financially stable now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am totally FOR closing tax loopholes including the abuse of the Non Dom rules. Live here, pay tax here. Earn/generate income/revenue here (company and individuals) pay tax here. Temporary visitor normally based/living in another country but in the UK for a defined period of time working on a project. Pay tax in home country. I am very unsure about the merits of a wealth tax. The detail would matter. As too would the threshold and manner in which it would be collected. Due to house price increases there are many people in the UK who are asset rich but cash/income poor (the proverbial old widow who owns a house in London that was bought in the 1960s for £5000 and now worth £2m). The tax man will get their cut when the widow dies through IHT so why should they be subject of a wealth tax when alive? Close loopholes re inheritance and offshore (tax free) trusts owning assets to ensure right amounts of IHT applied. Certainly NEVER apply any form of wealth tax on a family home/primary residence. Also if the purchase of a home(s) has been financed via debt (a mortgage) then total cost of that debt (which has been paid through post tax net earnings) should also discounted against any calculation for a wealth tax. Sure there is more but I cannot see how a wealth tax can be fair? I would agree that a wealth tax is tricky as valuation is difficult to assess and can vary. However, they managed until now in Norway. Inheritance tax makes sense to me, as much as it seems to upset people. Your children have not earned anything through their hard work but gain advantage for themselves and their children. They have already gaoned from the direct benefits in growing up with wealthy parents. They will still get a benefit, just a smaller one. If you have earned it, then spend it without restriction on whatever you want in the economy whilst you are alive. If you have too much to spend then it answers its own question. I'm one who thinks inheritance tax is out of step and should be reassessed ASAP. The rate is far to high and is not a reflection of property values. Why is the rate too high? 40% on anything over 325K is the norm, I know it can rise to 500k if the circumstances are right. Why is 40% "too high"? I'm not sure of your circumstances, but if you have an estate you have paid tax on house, cars, savings and many other assets, with money you were taxed on and you are thinking about leaving it to a child. 40% is too much. Why? As I said before, they haven't worked hard to earn it. This entrenches unearned wealth that creates a gap that is very hard to close as time goes on and the advantage is compounded generation after generation. Spend it on yourself freely. Your children have already benefitted from a more prosperous upbringing. They will still inherit a whopping 60% due to pure luck. The equivalent, for them, of a lottery win. I hope that my father leaves spending his last penny on himself. My success is having paid my own way after the advantages that I was given. I'm not against inheritance tax. I would argue that you shouldn't be mixing up any wealth my parents have with me 'having a more prosperous upbringing'. My parents had 5 kids and barely had 2 pennies to rub together when we were growing up. They're much much more financially stable now." That's fair. I am sure that I have an image in my head more around wealthy families inheriting wealth and passing on inherited wealth. Regardless, that is why there is an inheritance tax threshold. That should be much closer to that which most of the population could expect to inherit. 40% of anything over that seems reasonable if not downright generous! I think the lottery win analogy still applies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am totally FOR closing tax loopholes including the abuse of the Non Dom rules. Live here, pay tax here. Earn/generate income/revenue here (company and individuals) pay tax here. Temporary visitor normally based/living in another country but in the UK for a defined period of time working on a project. Pay tax in home country. I am very unsure about the merits of a wealth tax. The detail would matter. As too would the threshold and manner in which it would be collected. Due to house price increases there are many people in the UK who are asset rich but cash/income poor (the proverbial old widow who owns a house in London that was bought in the 1960s for £5000 and now worth £2m). The tax man will get their cut when the widow dies through IHT so why should they be subject of a wealth tax when alive? Close loopholes re inheritance and offshore (tax free) trusts owning assets to ensure right amounts of IHT applied. Certainly NEVER apply any form of wealth tax on a family home/primary residence. Also if the purchase of a home(s) has been financed via debt (a mortgage) then total cost of that debt (which has been paid through post tax net earnings) should also discounted against any calculation for a wealth tax. Sure there is more but I cannot see how a wealth tax can be fair? I would agree that a wealth tax is tricky as valuation is difficult to assess and can vary. However, they managed until now in Norway. Inheritance tax makes sense to me, as much as it seems to upset people. Your children have not earned anything through their hard work but gain advantage for themselves and their children. They have already gaoned from the direct benefits in growing up with wealthy parents. They will still get a benefit, just a smaller one. If you have earned it, then spend it without restriction on whatever you want in the economy whilst you are alive. If you have too much to spend then it answers its own question. I'm one who thinks inheritance tax is out of step and should be reassessed ASAP. The rate is far to high and is not a reflection of property values. Why is the rate too high? 40% on anything over 325K is the norm, I know it can rise to 500k if the circumstances are right. Why is 40% "too high"? I'm not sure of your circumstances, but if you have an estate you have paid tax on house, cars, savings and many other assets, with money you were taxed on and you are thinking about leaving it to a child. 40% is too much. Why? As I said before, they haven't worked hard to earn it. This entrenches unearned wealth that creates a gap that is very hard to close as time goes on and the advantage is compounded generation after generation. Spend it on yourself freely. Your children have already benefitted from a more prosperous upbringing. They will still inherit a whopping 60% due to pure luck. The equivalent, for them, of a lottery win. I hope that my father leaves spending his last penny on himself. My success is having paid my own way after the advantages that I was given. I'm not against inheritance tax. I would argue that you shouldn't be mixing up any wealth my parents have with me 'having a more prosperous upbringing'. My parents had 5 kids and barely had 2 pennies to rub together when we were growing up. They're much much more financially stable now. That's fair. I am sure that I have an image in my head more around wealthy families inheriting wealth and passing on inherited wealth. Regardless, that is why there is an inheritance tax threshold. That should be much closer to that which most of the population could expect to inherit. 40% of anything over that seems reasonable if not downright generous! I think the lottery win analogy still applies." I'm not sure I'd compare it to a literary win but as I say I'm not against inheritance tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surely the threshold at which IHT kicks in is somewhat arbitrary? Can’t remember what is is but £350k springs to mind? So if you have a house worth £350k in parts of Humberside (for example) then you probably have a very nice house indeed. If your home is in London and worth £350k it is probably a two bed flat at best in most boroughs and a one bed in the more expensive boroughs! I have some sympathy with your points Easy but not fully. When we live in a country where the next generation are likely to be poorer than their parents (for the first time ever), then being able to help your kids seems like a good thing. Personally I think the threshold should be higher. Perhaps £1m and regional variations could be considered." £1m is a huge amount of money to receive tax free through no effort on your part! The whole point is that a minority can pass that much on (the top 20%) so setting that as the rate doesn't help inherited inequality. The typical UK household has £300k (median) in total wealth. Again, I have no problem with the person who earned it spending it on themselves but not entrenching the gap to the next generation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am totally FOR closing tax loopholes including the abuse of the Non Dom rules. Live here, pay tax here. Earn/generate income/revenue here (company and individuals) pay tax here. Temporary visitor normally based/living in another country but in the UK for a defined period of time working on a project. Pay tax in home country. I am very unsure about the merits of a wealth tax. The detail would matter. As too would the threshold and manner in which it would be collected. Due to house price increases there are many people in the UK who are asset rich but cash/income poor (the proverbial old widow who owns a house in London that was bought in the 1960s for £5000 and now worth £2m). The tax man will get their cut when the widow dies through IHT so why should they be subject of a wealth tax when alive? Close loopholes re inheritance and offshore (tax free) trusts owning assets to ensure right amounts of IHT applied. Certainly NEVER apply any form of wealth tax on a family home/primary residence. Also if the purchase of a home(s) has been financed via debt (a mortgage) then total cost of that debt (which has been paid through post tax net earnings) should also discounted against any calculation for a wealth tax. Sure there is more but I cannot see how a wealth tax can be fair? I would agree that a wealth tax is tricky as valuation is difficult to assess and can vary. However, they managed until now in Norway. Inheritance tax makes sense to me, as much as it seems to upset people. Your children have not earned anything through their hard work but gain advantage for themselves and their children. They have already gaoned from the direct benefits in growing up with wealthy parents. They will still get a benefit, just a smaller one. If you have earned it, then spend it without restriction on whatever you want in the economy whilst you are alive. If you have too much to spend then it answers its own question. I'm one who thinks inheritance tax is out of step and should be reassessed ASAP. The rate is far to high and is not a reflection of property values. Why is the rate too high? 40% on anything over 325K is the norm, I know it can rise to 500k if the circumstances are right. Why is 40% "too high"? I'm not sure of your circumstances, but if you have an estate you have paid tax on house, cars, savings and many other assets, with money you were taxed on and you are thinking about leaving it to a child. 40% is too much. Why? As I said before, they haven't worked hard to earn it. This entrenches unearned wealth that creates a gap that is very hard to close as time goes on and the advantage is compounded generation after generation. Spend it on yourself freely. Your children have already benefitted from a more prosperous upbringing. They will still inherit a whopping 60% due to pure luck. The equivalent, for them, of a lottery win. I hope that my father leaves spending his last penny on himself. My success is having paid my own way after the advantages that I was given. I'm not against inheritance tax. I would argue that you shouldn't be mixing up any wealth my parents have with me 'having a more prosperous upbringing'. My parents had 5 kids and barely had 2 pennies to rub together when we were growing up. They're much much more financially stable now. That's fair. I am sure that I have an image in my head more around wealthy families inheriting wealth and passing on inherited wealth. Regardless, that is why there is an inheritance tax threshold. That should be much closer to that which most of the population could expect to inherit. 40% of anything over that seems reasonable if not downright generous! I think the lottery win analogy still applies. I'm not sure I'd compare it to a literary win but as I say I'm not against inheritance tax. " By that I mean it is luck, not judgement (as the recipient) that gives you a substantial financial benefit over other people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am totally FOR closing tax loopholes including the abuse of the Non Dom rules. Live here, pay tax here. Earn/generate income/revenue here (company and individuals) pay tax here. Temporary visitor normally based/living in another country but in the UK for a defined period of time working on a project. Pay tax in home country. I am very unsure about the merits of a wealth tax. The detail would matter. As too would the threshold and manner in which it would be collected. Due to house price increases there are many people in the UK who are asset rich but cash/income poor (the proverbial old widow who owns a house in London that was bought in the 1960s for £5000 and now worth £2m). The tax man will get their cut when the widow dies through IHT so why should they be subject of a wealth tax when alive? Close loopholes re inheritance and offshore (tax free) trusts owning assets to ensure right amounts of IHT applied. Certainly NEVER apply any form of wealth tax on a family home/primary residence. Also if the purchase of a home(s) has been financed via debt (a mortgage) then total cost of that debt (which has been paid through post tax net earnings) should also discounted against any calculation for a wealth tax. Sure there is more but I cannot see how a wealth tax can be fair? I would agree that a wealth tax is tricky as valuation is difficult to assess and can vary. However, they managed until now in Norway. Inheritance tax makes sense to me, as much as it seems to upset people. Your children have not earned anything through their hard work but gain advantage for themselves and their children. They have already gaoned from the direct benefits in growing up with wealthy parents. They will still get a benefit, just a smaller one. If you have earned it, then spend it without restriction on whatever you want in the economy whilst you are alive. If you have too much to spend then it answers its own question. I'm one who thinks inheritance tax is out of step and should be reassessed ASAP. The rate is far to high and is not a reflection of property values. Why is the rate too high? 40% on anything over 325K is the norm, I know it can rise to 500k if the circumstances are right. Why is 40% "too high"? I'm not sure of your circumstances, but if you have an estate you have paid tax on house, cars, savings and many other assets, with money you were taxed on and you are thinking about leaving it to a child. 40% is too much. Why? As I said before, they haven't worked hard to earn it. This entrenches unearned wealth that creates a gap that is very hard to close as time goes on and the advantage is compounded generation after generation. Spend it on yourself freely. Your children have already benefitted from a more prosperous upbringing. They will still inherit a whopping 60% due to pure luck. The equivalent, for them, of a lottery win. I hope that my father leaves spending his last penny on himself. My success is having paid my own way after the advantages that I was given. I'm not against inheritance tax. I would argue that you shouldn't be mixing up any wealth my parents have with me 'having a more prosperous upbringing'. My parents had 5 kids and barely had 2 pennies to rub together when we were growing up. They're much much more financially stable now. That's fair. I am sure that I have an image in my head more around wealthy families inheriting wealth and passing on inherited wealth. Regardless, that is why there is an inheritance tax threshold. That should be much closer to that which most of the population could expect to inherit. 40% of anything over that seems reasonable if not downright generous! I think the lottery win analogy still applies. I'm not sure I'd compare it to a literary win but as I say I'm not against inheritance tax. By that I mean it is luck, not judgement (as the recipient) that gives you a substantial financial benefit over other people." I don't agree that it's necessarily 'luck' (most inheritance comes from perents or grandparents), not really lucky that they have passed, I'll agree that it mostly would not be of your own doing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surely the threshold at which IHT kicks in is somewhat arbitrary? Can’t remember what is is but £350k springs to mind? So if you have a house worth £350k in parts of Humberside (for example) then you probably have a very nice house indeed. If your home is in London and worth £350k it is probably a two bed flat at best in most boroughs and a one bed in the more expensive boroughs! I have some sympathy with your points Easy but not fully. When we live in a country where the next generation are likely to be poorer than their parents (for the first time ever), then being able to help your kids seems like a good thing. Personally I think the threshold should be higher. Perhaps £1m and regional variations could be considered. £1m is a huge amount of money to receive tax free through no effort on your part! The whole point is that a minority can pass that much on (the top 20%) so setting that as the rate doesn't help inherited inequality. The typical UK household has £300k (median) in total wealth. Again, I have no problem with the person who earned it spending it on themselves but not entrenching the gap to the next generation." Hypothetically... I could have a house worth 850K and an overall estate of 1.2 million. 1 daughter with 3 children and a husband, both working and not able to get on the property ladder. When the probate is granted to her she would need to find 350K to pay the government. Alternatively, they could move in to the house and it becomes their family home giving them the income from their jobs to be able to support the 3 children through their education and into their own first homes, removing any reliance on the state. Or all the hard earned gets ripped apart and sold off to pay the tax. Hypothetically, that would make me sad...Inheritance tax coming down in % as house prices rise works in my head. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@Jackal1 not going to keep quote replying as gets too long. I personally would rather the Govt/HMT/HMRC put significant effort into collecting the right tax from corporations and individuals. No sweatheart/back room deals. Pay your bloody tax! 1) Corporations should pay tax on earnings generated in a country in that country. No more tax haven holding companies with IP royalty charges etc meaning UK operations are technically loss making (they aren’t). 2) Close down avoidance loopholes and get far stricter on what is and is not acceptable avoidance (evasion should be totally sanctioned). That includes abuse of Non-Dom (should be based on time spent in the UK and whether they make a life here, kids at school for example). As you say 7 year gifting could/should be removed. 3) Replace IR35 with something workable and fair to all parties. Focus on these big ticket items and we do not need to tinker with wealth taxes which just seem, to me, to be punitive. " I agree with all of your points as they are fair and rational . However to be devils advocate lord Rothermere is the easiest to example so sorry for repeating. His Non Dom status has lead him to amass a huge fortune in the Caribbean which in turn pays for the large estate in Wiltshire. Do you think his children should be gifted that estate and again pay no tax on something not only extremely valuable but also a generator of a sizeable income ? How is it fair they pay absolutely nothing and yet if an elderly person who has paid PAYE all their lives living in a three bed semi goes into a home the council can take their home for payment as the council is short of funds. I’m linking the your points on fair tax whatever the circumstances of that wealth generation . I don’t agree you should be taxed more just because you are wealthy. You should be taxed the same as everyone else and as you have said no one should be allowed to avoid it . Gifting a property is tax avoidance it’s that simple. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surely the threshold at which IHT kicks in is somewhat arbitrary? Can’t remember what is is but £350k springs to mind? So if you have a house worth £350k in parts of Humberside (for example) then you probably have a very nice house indeed. If your home is in London and worth £350k it is probably a two bed flat at best in most boroughs and a one bed in the more expensive boroughs! I have some sympathy with your points Easy but not fully. When we live in a country where the next generation are likely to be poorer than their parents (for the first time ever), then being able to help your kids seems like a good thing. Personally I think the threshold should be higher. Perhaps £1m and regional variations could be considered. £1m is a huge amount of money to receive tax free through no effort on your part! The whole point is that a minority can pass that much on (the top 20%) so setting that as the rate doesn't help inherited inequality. The typical UK household has £300k (median) in total wealth. Again, I have no problem with the person who earned it spending it on themselves but not entrenching the gap to the next generation. Hypothetically... I could have a house worth 850K and an overall estate of 1.2 million. 1 daughter with 3 children and a husband, both working and not able to get on the property ladder. When the probate is granted to her she would need to find 350K to pay the government. Alternatively, they could move in to the house and it becomes their family home giving them the income from their jobs to be able to support the 3 children through their education and into their own first homes, removing any reliance on the state. Or all the hard earned gets ripped apart and sold off to pay the tax. Hypothetically, that would make me sad...Inheritance tax coming down in % as house prices rise works in my head. " It is clear how your children and grandchildren would benefit. However, the point is that someone in exactly the same situation, income, location and family size may well not receive the benefit of hundreds of thousands of pounds of free money. That second family would fall behind over multiple generations, as I described. You deserve the money that you earned from your hard work. They do not really, although it is natural for you to want them to benefit from it. In addition to the tax free sum they would still benefit from 60% of anything above that. So they would still benefit from substantially more free money than someone who did not have the foresight to be born to parents with a good income or assets to pass on to them. It is really about having a reset button for each generation to achieve on their own with the excess from the previous generation going to help those with the worst start. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Easy may I ask (you may choose not to answer of course)... do you have children?" Yes, I have children. If they receive something in the order of £300k as a free gift at some point in the future that would be a hell of a lot, wouldn't you say? I do noy expect to inherit anything from my dad either. I want him to spend every last penny on himself and extended family and charities and whatever else he fancies. He's done enough for me, as did my mother. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they actually have one?" I imagine that they will commit to it closer to the time when they know the state of the country and the public mood. Why would they do anything else and make themselves a hostage to fortune? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Easy may I ask (you may choose not to answer of course)... do you have children? Yes, I have children. If they receive something in the order of £300k as a free gift at some point in the future that would be a hell of a lot, wouldn't you say? I do noy expect to inherit anything from my dad either. I want him to spend every last penny on himself and extended family and charities and whatever else he fancies. He's done enough for me, as did my mother." That's the point I was making earlier. Your mum and dad were able to do 'enough' for you. A lot of people do not have that fortune, and any 'enough' isn't realised until the sale of any property. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's quite interesting how 'conservatives' who typically love the free market where individuals prosper by their own merit also support inheritance too, which is quite the antithesis of prospering from one's own endeavours. At a tangent, on that basis I also think private education is also anti-free market." as is too big to fail ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's quite interesting how 'conservatives' who typically love the free market where individuals prosper by their own merit also support inheritance too, which is quite the antithesis of prospering from one's own endeavours. At a tangent, on that basis I also think private education is also anti-free market." Actually, if state education functioned as it should, nobody would bother with private education. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Easy may I ask (you may choose not to answer of course)... do you have children? Yes, I have children. If they receive something in the order of £300k as a free gift at some point in the future that would be a hell of a lot, wouldn't you say? I do noy expect to inherit anything from my dad either. I want him to spend every last penny on himself and extended family and charities and whatever else he fancies. He's done enough for me, as did my mother. That's the point I was making earlier. Your mum and dad were able to do 'enough' for you. A lot of people do not have that fortune, and any 'enough' isn't realised until the sale of any property." At which point you have a tax free allowance. Is £300k not enough free money to give to someone? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's quite interesting how 'conservatives' who typically love the free market where individuals prosper by their own merit also support inheritance too, which is quite the antithesis of prospering from one's own endeavours. At a tangent, on that basis I also think private education is also anti-free market." Back to the OP there. Some conservative supporters confuse "success" with "wealth". IE, if you inherit a large wedge of cash, you're "successful". Much like a lot of Americans think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Easy may I ask (you may choose not to answer of course)... do you have children? Yes, I have children. If they receive something in the order of £300k as a free gift at some point in the future that would be a hell of a lot, wouldn't you say? I do noy expect to inherit anything from my dad either. I want him to spend every last penny on himself and extended family and charities and whatever else he fancies. He's done enough for me, as did my mother. That's the point I was making earlier. Your mum and dad were able to do 'enough' for you. A lot of people do not have that fortune, and any 'enough' isn't realised until the sale of any property. At which point you have a tax free allowance. Is £300k not enough free money to give to someone?" You got 'enough' to help you in life and you'll still get your share of 300k. Some of us will only get a share of 300k. And yet you bemoan those who will get an unfair advantage from inheritance? As I said, for a lot of families in this country, 'wealth' only comes after the children have their own careers. Those children will never benefit from 'wealth' like you seem to think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Easy may I ask (you may choose not to answer of course)... do you have children? Yes, I have children. If they receive something in the order of £300k as a free gift at some point in the future that would be a hell of a lot, wouldn't you say? I do noy expect to inherit anything from my dad either. I want him to spend every last penny on himself and extended family and charities and whatever else he fancies. He's done enough for me, as did my mother. That's the point I was making earlier. Your mum and dad were able to do 'enough' for you. A lot of people do not have that fortune, and any 'enough' isn't realised until the sale of any property. At which point you have a tax free allowance. Is £300k not enough free money to give to someone? You got 'enough' to help you in life and you'll still get your share of 300k. Some of us will only get a share of 300k. And yet you bemoan those who will get an unfair advantage from inheritance? As I said, for a lot of families in this country, 'wealth' only comes after the children have their own careers. Those children will never benefit from 'wealth' like you seem to think." Just to be clear, if someone gave you £300k at any point in your life you would not consider that a substantial amount of money? £100k even. Not a lot of money? Not life changing? Can you explain why £300k isn't a substantial enough sum? How much is adequate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That may well be the case but the point remains, a future adult is benefitting from the choices of their parents rather than through their own endeavours. How is any sort of inheritance not antithetical to meritocracy?" I guess so although somewhat academic. How far do you take that logic? Diet, books, love and attention? Inequality will always exist. Minimising it becoming generationally entrenched whilst still allowing substantial benefit in your own lifetime and certainly some to your offspring on death works with the grain of humanity rather than against it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again, I'm not disputing that, but let's be honest and stop jizzing off about meritocracy then. Accept that life isn't fair and that circumstances outside our own talents are more important. Let's see how the general population take that...." I didn't even mention "meritocracy". Stop making assumptions. The general population can accept the "unfairness" of paying their inheritance tax then as HMRC are a circumstance outside their own talents. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Easy may I ask (you may choose not to answer of course)... do you have children? Yes, I have children. If they receive something in the order of £300k as a free gift at some point in the future that would be a hell of a lot, wouldn't you say? I do noy expect to inherit anything from my dad either. I want him to spend every last penny on himself and extended family and charities and whatever else he fancies. He's done enough for me, as did my mother. That's the point I was making earlier. Your mum and dad were able to do 'enough' for you. A lot of people do not have that fortune, and any 'enough' isn't realised until the sale of any property. At which point you have a tax free allowance. Is £300k not enough free money to give to someone? You got 'enough' to help you in life and you'll still get your share of 300k. Some of us will only get a share of 300k. And yet you bemoan those who will get an unfair advantage from inheritance? As I said, for a lot of families in this country, 'wealth' only comes after the children have their own careers. Those children will never benefit from 'wealth' like you seem to think. Just to be clear, if someone gave you £300k at any point in your life you would not consider that a substantial amount of money? £100k even. Not a lot of money? Not life changing? Can you explain why £300k isn't a substantial enough sum? How much is adequate?" Why so many questions? It's just a conversation. I didn't at any point say 300k 'in cash', that is what you're talking about isn't it, wasn't a significant amount of money. Your argument is for children having had a prosperous upbringing and having already benefitted from their parents 'wealth', that is not actually representative of most families in the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All any of us are posting here is opinion. All opinion is informed by a combination of ethics, varying levels of knowledge and personal circumstances. In MY opinion the primary (family) home should be exempt from any form of wealth or inheritance tax. There is a part of me that says “death duties” per se shouldn’t happen at all. A person has been taxed throughout their adult life and accumulated assets from post tax net income, so why should they pay tax again when they die (yes technically it is not them it is the beneficiaries in the Will). However, if we must accept death duties then it should be fairly applied to all with things like the seven year gifting rule or assets held in trust tackled. Only the rich benefit from those avoidance loopholes meaning it is generally middle/upper middle income families who are disproportionately hit with death duties. That is not fair." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again, I'm not disputing that, but let's be honest and stop jizzing off about meritocracy then. Accept that life isn't fair and that circumstances outside our own talents are more important. Let's see how the general population take that.... I didn't even mention "meritocracy". Stop making assumptions. The general population can accept the "unfairness" of paying their inheritance tax then as HMRC are a circumstance outside their own talents." I didn't say you had mentioned meritocracy at all. My point is simply that inheritance is antithetical to genuine free market principles which to a lot of Conservatives appear to be very important - benefits too low work harder/longer, don't subsidise industries etc. So, if one claims to support free market principles as the be all and end all, have the honesty to apply them everywhere including most importantly, to one's own children. Not sure what your last sentence means, sorry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Easy may I ask (you may choose not to answer of course)... do you have children? Yes, I have children. If they receive something in the order of £300k as a free gift at some point in the future that would be a hell of a lot, wouldn't you say? I do noy expect to inherit anything from my dad either. I want him to spend every last penny on himself and extended family and charities and whatever else he fancies. He's done enough for me, as did my mother. That's the point I was making earlier. Your mum and dad were able to do 'enough' for you. A lot of people do not have that fortune, and any 'enough' isn't realised until the sale of any property. At which point you have a tax free allowance. Is £300k not enough free money to give to someone? You got 'enough' to help you in life and you'll still get your share of 300k. Some of us will only get a share of 300k. And yet you bemoan those who will get an unfair advantage from inheritance? As I said, for a lot of families in this country, 'wealth' only comes after the children have their own careers. Those children will never benefit from 'wealth' like you seem to think. Just to be clear, if someone gave you £300k at any point in your life you would not consider that a substantial amount of money? £100k even. Not a lot of money? Not life changing? Can you explain why £300k isn't a substantial enough sum? How much is adequate? Why so many questions? It's just a conversation. I didn't at any point say 300k 'in cash', that is what you're talking about isn't it, wasn't a significant amount of money. Your argument is for children having had a prosperous upbringing and having already benefitted from their parents 'wealth', that is not actually representative of most families in the UK. " More questions to understand your position. That is how a conversation works. How do you do it? No, that wasn't "my argument". That was one aspect of it and I said that that was based around more wealthy people. £300k or more is then a lot of money for someone to be given for free. What don't you like? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All any of us are posting here is opinion. All opinion is informed by a combination of ethics, varying levels of knowledge and personal circumstances. In MY opinion the primary (family) home should be exempt from any form of wealth or inheritance tax. There is a part of me that says “death duties” per se shouldn’t happen at all. A person has been taxed throughout their adult life and accumulated assets from post tax net income, so why should they pay tax again when they die (yes technically it is not them it is the beneficiaries in the Will). However, if we must accept death duties then it should be fairly applied to all with things like the seven year gifting rule or assets held in trust tackled. Only the rich benefit from those avoidance loopholes meaning it is generally middle/upper middle income families who are disproportionately hit with death duties. That is not fair." The fact that it is the beneficiaries is not a small aside. It is the entire point. It is unearned income. So, £300k+ is quite a lot to benefit from for anyone. Of course, close any other loopholes too. It's a starting point for anything that everyone has to be playing by the same rules. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Easy may I ask (you may choose not to answer of course)... do you have children? Yes, I have children. If they receive something in the order of £300k as a free gift at some point in the future that would be a hell of a lot, wouldn't you say? I do noy expect to inherit anything from my dad either. I want him to spend every last penny on himself and extended family and charities and whatever else he fancies. He's done enough for me, as did my mother. That's the point I was making earlier. Your mum and dad were able to do 'enough' for you. A lot of people do not have that fortune, and any 'enough' isn't realised until the sale of any property. At which point you have a tax free allowance. Is £300k not enough free money to give to someone? You got 'enough' to help you in life and you'll still get your share of 300k. Some of us will only get a share of 300k. And yet you bemoan those who will get an unfair advantage from inheritance? As I said, for a lot of families in this country, 'wealth' only comes after the children have their own careers. Those children will never benefit from 'wealth' like you seem to think. Just to be clear, if someone gave you £300k at any point in your life you would not consider that a substantial amount of money? £100k even. Not a lot of money? Not life changing? Can you explain why £300k isn't a substantial enough sum? How much is adequate? Why so many questions? It's just a conversation. I didn't at any point say 300k 'in cash', that is what you're talking about isn't it, wasn't a significant amount of money. Your argument is for children having had a prosperous upbringing and having already benefitted from their parents 'wealth', that is not actually representative of most families in the UK. More questions to understand your position. That is how a conversation works. How do you do it? No, that wasn't "my argument". That was one aspect of it and I said that that was based around more wealthy people. £300k or more is then a lot of money for someone to be given for free. What don't you like?" Not all conversations come by way of 5 questions at once, most are one question at a time but hey, you do you, I've told you that before. The following quote is yours, I'm stating that your position on this is not representative of the average UK family. "Your children have not earned anything through their hard work but gain advantage for themselves and their children. They have already gaoned from the direct benefits in growing up with wealthy parents. They will still get a benefit, just a smaller one. If you have earned it, then spend it without restriction on whatever you want in the economy whilst you are alive. If you have too much to spend then it answers its own question." You keep talking about someone being given 300k being a lot of money, I haven't argued it isn't but again very few are going to be given that amount as its not representative of the average UK family. 325k is the figure and that will be split. For me, there's 5 of us. For most average, there 2-3. Very few have 0 siblings or other family members that it would need to be split between. If you can't respond to my clear message of 'your position on this isn't representative' then you may aswell not bother. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again, I'm not disputing that, but let's be honest and stop jizzing off about meritocracy then. Accept that life isn't fair and that circumstances outside our own talents are more important. Let's see how the general population take that.... I didn't even mention "meritocracy". Stop making assumptions. The general population can accept the "unfairness" of paying their inheritance tax then as HMRC are a circumstance outside their own talents. I didn't say you had mentioned meritocracy at all. My point is simply that inheritance is antithetical to genuine free market principles which to a lot of Conservatives appear to be very important - benefits too low work harder/longer, don't subsidise industries etc. So, if one claims to support free market principles as the be all and end all, have the honesty to apply them everywhere including most importantly, to one's own children. Not sure what your last sentence means, sorry. " Then why did you feel it necessary to demand a stop to "stop jizzing off about meritocracy"? I agreed with your point and if you chose to answer the questions which I posed would clarify what you already know. That a perfect meritocracy is impossible, as is a perfect free market where everyone starts from zero. If it is "unfair" that there is some level of inequality due to factors out of people's control then it is also "unfair" that there is some form of taxation, also out of people's control, to offset it in some way. It's an imperfect system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again, I'm not disputing that, but let's be honest and stop jizzing off about meritocracy then. Accept that life isn't fair and that circumstances outside our own talents are more important. Let's see how the general population take that.... I didn't even mention "meritocracy". Stop making assumptions. The general population can accept the "unfairness" of paying their inheritance tax then as HMRC are a circumstance outside their own talents. I didn't say you had mentioned meritocracy at all. My point is simply that inheritance is antithetical to genuine free market principles which to a lot of Conservatives appear to be very important - benefits too low work harder/longer, don't subsidise industries etc. So, if one claims to support free market principles as the be all and end all, have the honesty to apply them everywhere including most importantly, to one's own children. Not sure what your last sentence means, sorry. Then why did you feel it necessary to demand a stop to "stop jizzing off about meritocracy"? I agreed with your point and if you chose to answer the questions which I posed would clarify what you already know. That a perfect meritocracy is impossible, as is a perfect free market where everyone starts from zero. If it is "unfair" that there is some level of inequality due to factors out of people's control then it is also "unfair" that there is some form of taxation, also out of people's control, to offset it in some way. It's an imperfect system." I wasn't referring to you jizzing off about meritocracy, I meant as a general principle. Apologies I didn't see a direct question in your post. A perfect free market is very achievable, we simply have to be honest about what it entails. I think though we may be at cross purposes. If someone claims to believe in the free market (which is essentially meritocracy - all enter the market as equals and then prosper according to hard work, talent and choices) then they should as a principle support zero inheritance because quite simply it means that people are not entering the market as equals. However, the reality is that lots of people who have started off quite well in life are very quick to lay their success at their own door 'I worked hard, did the hours etc'. Often it's disigenious bollocks. That's the jizzing off I have a problem with. Taxation, or otherwise is a completely different issue. A society raises taxes to pay for what it believes it needs to provide. If it doesn't want to provide any services then it levies no tax, if it wants cradle to grave care it levies tax. Tax isn't out of the individuals control, if they want lower tax they vote for or establish a lower tax party. That a child born in the next bed to me will inherit,say £1M when they are 18 is not within my control. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Easy may I ask (you may choose not to answer of course)... do you have children? Yes, I have children. If they receive something in the order of £300k as a free gift at some point in the future that would be a hell of a lot, wouldn't you say? I do noy expect to inherit anything from my dad either. I want him to spend every last penny on himself and extended family and charities and whatever else he fancies. He's done enough for me, as did my mother. That's the point I was making earlier. Your mum and dad were able to do 'enough' for you. A lot of people do not have that fortune, and any 'enough' isn't realised until the sale of any property. At which point you have a tax free allowance. Is £300k not enough free money to give to someone? You got 'enough' to help you in life and you'll still get your share of 300k. Some of us will only get a share of 300k. And yet you bemoan those who will get an unfair advantage from inheritance? As I said, for a lot of families in this country, 'wealth' only comes after the children have their own careers. Those children will never benefit from 'wealth' like you seem to think. Just to be clear, if someone gave you £300k at any point in your life you would not consider that a substantial amount of money? £100k even. Not a lot of money? Not life changing? Can you explain why £300k isn't a substantial enough sum? How much is adequate? Why so many questions? It's just a conversation. I didn't at any point say 300k 'in cash', that is what you're talking about isn't it, wasn't a significant amount of money. Your argument is for children having had a prosperous upbringing and having already benefitted from their parents 'wealth', that is not actually representative of most families in the UK. More questions to understand your position. That is how a conversation works. How do you do it? No, that wasn't "my argument". That was one aspect of it and I said that that was based around more wealthy people. £300k or more is then a lot of money for someone to be given for free. What don't you like? Not all conversations come by way of 5 questions at once, most are one question at a time but hey, you do you, I've told you that before. The following quote is yours, I'm stating that your position on this is not representative of the average UK family. "Your children have not earned anything through their hard work but gain advantage for themselves and their children. They have already gaoned from the direct benefits in growing up with wealthy parents. They will still get a benefit, just a smaller one. If you have earned it, then spend it without restriction on whatever you want in the economy whilst you are alive. If you have too much to spend then it answers its own question." You keep talking about someone being given 300k being a lot of money, I haven't argued it isn't but again very few are going to be given that amount as its not representative of the average UK family. 325k is the figure and that will be split. For me, there's 5 of us. For most average, there 2-3. Very few have 0 siblings or other family members that it would need to be split between. If you can't respond to my clear message of 'your position on this isn't representative' then you may aswell not bother." Some conversations do. It is possible to cover more in a written format with everything closely related. Perhaps not for you. Yes, that was a dig as you are very willing to patronise others. Especially as what I wrote in response to what you wrote about coming from a larger family without access to the money when growing up was the following: "That's fair. I am sure that I have an image in my head more around wealthy families inheriting wealth and passing on inherited wealth." Was that not a prostrate and clear enough acknowledgement? You did not give a "clear message" until now and regardless some basic maths will provide some figures. Thank you for the £325k pedantry. That adds a lot to the principle of the discussion doesn't it? £65k each between five, £108 between 3, £162 between two with no tax to pay then 60% available to divide above that. Is £65k+ a negligible amount of money? £108k? £162k? What if they have divorced parents with one home each? Too many questions for you to cope with? I know that you expect your demands met in full but don't feel the need to do the same. Regardless, I will ask again. Many people get nothing. How big a differential would you like to ensure exists between one family and another from one generation to the next? How much is adequate for an individual before paying tax on the unearned, free money? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again, I'm not disputing that, but let's be honest and stop jizzing off about meritocracy then. Accept that life isn't fair and that circumstances outside our own talents are more important. Let's see how the general population take that.... I didn't even mention "meritocracy". Stop making assumptions. The general population can accept the "unfairness" of paying their inheritance tax then as HMRC are a circumstance outside their own talents. I didn't say you had mentioned meritocracy at all. My point is simply that inheritance is antithetical to genuine free market principles which to a lot of Conservatives appear to be very important - benefits too low work harder/longer, don't subsidise industries etc. So, if one claims to support free market principles as the be all and end all, have the honesty to apply them everywhere including most importantly, to one's own children. Not sure what your last sentence means, sorry. Then why did you feel it necessary to demand a stop to "stop jizzing off about meritocracy"? I agreed with your point and if you chose to answer the questions which I posed would clarify what you already know. That a perfect meritocracy is impossible, as is a perfect free market where everyone starts from zero. If it is "unfair" that there is some level of inequality due to factors out of people's control then it is also "unfair" that there is some form of taxation, also out of people's control, to offset it in some way. It's an imperfect system. I wasn't referring to you jizzing off about meritocracy, I meant as a general principle. Apologies I didn't see a direct question in your post. A perfect free market is very achievable, we simply have to be honest about what it entails. I think though we may be at cross purposes. If someone claims to believe in the free market (which is essentially meritocracy - all enter the market as equals and then prosper according to hard work, talent and choices) then they should as a principle support zero inheritance because quite simply it means that people are not entering the market as equals. However, the reality is that lots of people who have started off quite well in life are very quick to lay their success at their own door 'I worked hard, did the hours etc'. Often it's disigenious bollocks. That's the jizzing off I have a problem with. Taxation, or otherwise is a completely different issue. A society raises taxes to pay for what it believes it needs to provide. If it doesn't want to provide any services then it levies no tax, if it wants cradle to grave care it levies tax. Tax isn't out of the individuals control, if they want lower tax they vote for or establish a lower tax party. That a child born in the next bed to me will inherit,say £1M when they are 18 is not within my control. " I agree. Those who win are often playing at a rigged table but believe it is their skill that got them there. Taxation is not only to provide services though. That is far more the free market view of what is needed for the bare minimum. Taxation is also used to level the playing field in many societies. You can vote for change if it available. Until very recent times I could not envisage a party promising to do away completely with inheritance tax, it would be bonkers. Then we got Trussonomics, so anything is possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Easy may I ask (you may choose not to answer of course)... do you have children? Yes, I have children. If they receive something in the order of £300k as a free gift at some point in the future that would be a hell of a lot, wouldn't you say? I do noy expect to inherit anything from my dad either. I want him to spend every last penny on himself and extended family and charities and whatever else he fancies. He's done enough for me, as did my mother. That's the point I was making earlier. Your mum and dad were able to do 'enough' for you. A lot of people do not have that fortune, and any 'enough' isn't realised until the sale of any property. At which point you have a tax free allowance. Is £300k not enough free money to give to someone? You got 'enough' to help you in life and you'll still get your share of 300k. Some of us will only get a share of 300k. And yet you bemoan those who will get an unfair advantage from inheritance? As I said, for a lot of families in this country, 'wealth' only comes after the children have their own careers. Those children will never benefit from 'wealth' like you seem to think. Just to be clear, if someone gave you £300k at any point in your life you would not consider that a substantial amount of money? £100k even. Not a lot of money? Not life changing? Can you explain why £300k isn't a substantial enough sum? How much is adequate? Why so many questions? It's just a conversation. I didn't at any point say 300k 'in cash', that is what you're talking about isn't it, wasn't a significant amount of money. Your argument is for children having had a prosperous upbringing and having already benefitted from their parents 'wealth', that is not actually representative of most families in the UK. More questions to understand your position. That is how a conversation works. How do you do it? No, that wasn't "my argument". That was one aspect of it and I said that that was based around more wealthy people. £300k or more is then a lot of money for someone to be given for free. What don't you like? Not all conversations come by way of 5 questions at once, most are one question at a time but hey, you do you, I've told you that before. The following quote is yours, I'm stating that your position on this is not representative of the average UK family. "Your children have not earned anything through their hard work but gain advantage for themselves and their children. They have already gaoned from the direct benefits in growing up with wealthy parents. They will still get a benefit, just a smaller one. If you have earned it, then spend it without restriction on whatever you want in the economy whilst you are alive. If you have too much to spend then it answers its own question." You keep talking about someone being given 300k being a lot of money, I haven't argued it isn't but again very few are going to be given that amount as its not representative of the average UK family. 325k is the figure and that will be split. For me, there's 5 of us. For most average, there 2-3. Very few have 0 siblings or other family members that it would need to be split between. If you can't respond to my clear message of 'your position on this isn't representative' then you may aswell not bother. Some conversations do. It is possible to cover more in a written format with everything closely related. Perhaps not for you. Yes, that was a dig as you are very willing to patronise others. Especially as what I wrote in response to what you wrote about coming from a larger family without access to the money when growing up was the following: "That's fair. I am sure that I have an image in my head more around wealthy families inheriting wealth and passing on inherited wealth." Was that not a prostrate and clear enough acknowledgement? You did not give a "clear message" until now and regardless some basic maths will provide some figures. Thank you for the £325k pedantry. That adds a lot to the principle of the discussion doesn't it? £65k each between five, £108 between 3, £162 between two with no tax to pay then 60% available to divide above that. Is £65k+ a negligible amount of money? £108k? £162k? What if they have divorced parents with one home each? Too many questions for you to cope with? I know that you expect your demands met in full but don't feel the need to do the same. Regardless, I will ask again. Many people get nothing. How big a differential would you like to ensure exists between one family and another from one generation to the next? How much is adequate for an individual before paying tax on the unearned, free money?" Did you actually just talk to me about patronising others? 
9 question marks? Really.
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm not a fan of inheritance tax. I feel if you own something, then you should be able to give it to someone else without anyone paying tax on it. Especially valuable things like a house as you would have paid lots of tax buying it and earning the money to pay for it." I agree with the sentiment. But there's a problem over time. Zero inheritance tax creates a society where there is a permanent group who own all the money/property forever. (Overly simplistic on the wording, but you get the gist.) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm not a fan of inheritance tax. I feel if you own something, then you should be able to give it to someone else without anyone paying tax on it. Especially valuable things like a house as you would have paid lots of tax buying it and earning the money to pay for it." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm not a fan of inheritance tax. I feel if you own something, then you should be able to give it to someone else without anyone paying tax on it. Especially valuable things like a house as you would have paid lots of tax buying it and earning the money to pay for it." Yet again, another sensible, feet-on-the-ground, post which I entirely agree with | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm not a fan of inheritance tax. I feel if you own something, then you should be able to give it to someone else without anyone paying tax on it. Especially valuable things like a house as you would have paid lots of tax buying it and earning the money to pay for it." I'm not against IHT as such. I do feel that the current tax free amount is way too low though, 325k is not a lot of money when divided by however many lay claim to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm not a fan of inheritance tax. I feel if you own something, then you should be able to give it to someone else without anyone paying tax on it. Especially valuable things like a house as you would have paid lots of tax buying it and earning the money to pay for it. I agree with the sentiment. But there's a problem over time. Zero inheritance tax creates a society where there is a permanent group who own all the money/property forever. (Overly simplistic on the wording, but you get the gist.)" If I collect stamps (I don’t) or records or books and buy them out of my post tax net income and it turns out some of them grow substantially in value. Is that a taxable asset if I leave the stamp collection to my kid? Honest question not a gotcha. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm not a fan of inheritance tax. I feel if you own something, then you should be able to give it to someone else without anyone paying tax on it. Especially valuable things like a house as you would have paid lots of tax buying it and earning the money to pay for it. I agree with the sentiment. But there's a problem over time. Zero inheritance tax creates a society where there is a permanent group who own all the money/property forever. (Overly simplistic on the wording, but you get the gist.) If I collect stamps (I don’t) or records or books and buy them out of my post tax net income and it turns out some of them grow substantially in value. Is that a taxable asset if I leave the stamp collection to my kid? Honest question not a gotcha." I believe it would be yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm not a fan of inheritance tax. I feel if you own something, then you should be able to give it to someone else without anyone paying tax on it. Especially valuable things like a house as you would have paid lots of tax buying it and earning the money to pay for it. I agree with the sentiment. But there's a problem over time. Zero inheritance tax creates a society where there is a permanent group who own all the money/property forever. (Overly simplistic on the wording, but you get the gist.) If I collect stamps (I don’t) or records or books and buy them out of my post tax net income and it turns out some of them grow substantially in value. Is that a taxable asset if I leave the stamp collection to my kid? Honest question not a gotcha." mmmm, the fact you needed to point out you don't collect stamps, makes me think you collect stamps... dodgy post | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm not a fan of inheritance tax. I feel if you own something, then you should be able to give it to someone else without anyone paying tax on it. Especially valuable things like a house as you would have paid lots of tax buying it and earning the money to pay for it. I agree with the sentiment. But there's a problem over time. Zero inheritance tax creates a society where there is a permanent group who own all the money/property forever. (Overly simplistic on the wording, but you get the gist.) If I collect stamps (I don’t) or records or books and buy them out of my post tax net income and it turns out some of them grow substantially in value. Is that a taxable asset if I leave the stamp collection to my kid? Honest question not a gotcha." No idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm not a fan of inheritance tax. I feel if you own something, then you should be able to give it to someone else without anyone paying tax on it. Especially valuable things like a house as you would have paid lots of tax buying it and earning the money to pay for it. I agree with the sentiment. But there's a problem over time. Zero inheritance tax creates a society where there is a permanent group who own all the money/property forever. (Overly simplistic on the wording, but you get the gist.) If I collect stamps (I don’t) or records or books and buy them out of my post tax net income and it turns out some of them grow substantially in value. Is that a taxable asset if I leave the stamp collection to my kid? Honest question not a gotcha." Sorry I only read stamps. Stamps are a taxable asset. Not sure on the others | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm not a fan of inheritance tax. I feel if you own something, then you should be able to give it to someone else without anyone paying tax on it. Especially valuable things like a house as you would have paid lots of tax buying it and earning the money to pay for it. I agree with the sentiment. But there's a problem over time. Zero inheritance tax creates a society where there is a permanent group who own all the money/property forever. (Overly simplistic on the wording, but you get the gist.) If I collect stamps (I don’t) or records or books and buy them out of my post tax net income and it turns out some of them grow substantially in value. Is that a taxable asset if I leave the stamp collection to my kid? Honest question not a gotcha. mmmm, the fact you needed to point out you don't collect stamps, makes me think you collect stamps... dodgy post "LOLZ I really don’t but I can see how that looks. I’ll get my coat and close the door on the way out  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm not a fan of inheritance tax. I feel if you own something, then you should be able to give it to someone else without anyone paying tax on it. Especially valuable things like a house as you would have paid lots of tax buying it and earning the money to pay for it. I agree with the sentiment. But there's a problem over time. Zero inheritance tax creates a society where there is a permanent group who own all the money/property forever. (Overly simplistic on the wording, but you get the gist.) If I collect stamps (I don’t) or records or books and buy them out of my post tax net income and it turns out some of them grow substantially in value. Is that a taxable asset if I leave the stamp collection to my kid? Honest question not a gotcha. mmmm, the fact you needed to point out you don't collect stamps, makes me think you collect stamps... dodgy post
LOLZ I really don’t but I can see how that looks. I’ll get my coat and close the door on the way out "Stamps, licking, heads... Sounds like a sexy hobby to me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm not a fan of inheritance tax. I feel if you own something, then you should be able to give it to someone else without anyone paying tax on it. Especially valuable things like a house as you would have paid lots of tax buying it and earning the money to pay for it. I agree with the sentiment. But there's a problem over time. Zero inheritance tax creates a society where there is a permanent group who own all the money/property forever. (Overly simplistic on the wording, but you get the gist.) If I collect stamps (I don’t) or records or books and buy them out of my post tax net income and it turns out some of them grow substantially in value. Is that a taxable asset if I leave the stamp collection to my kid? Honest question not a gotcha. mmmm, the fact you needed to point out you don't collect stamps, makes me think you collect stamps... dodgy post
LOLZ I really don’t but I can see how that looks. I’ll get my coat and close the door on the way out
Stamps, licking, heads... Sounds like a sexy hobby to me "Perv | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m with Leroy on this then. If you own it then it is yours to do what you want and give to who you want!" As I said above, I agree with the sentiment. But fast forward say a hundred years. You'd have a group who have been squatting on property that's been passed onto them. Effectively, they never had to pay a penny in taxes on those properties. So no money there is going to benefit society & services. But this group is free to live in or earn off the back of this property forever. At the same time, another group who inherited nothing will struggle to ever get any property. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadia whittome MP says we need "ambition for the future, taxing the rich". How does taxing success relate to ambition for the future?" Do the Labour Party have any policies on anything, that’s the main reason they did so poorly in last election. No credible policies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm not a fan of inheritance tax. I feel if you own something, then you should be able to give it to someone else without anyone paying tax on it. Especially valuable things like a house as you would have paid lots of tax buying it and earning the money to pay for it. I agree with the sentiment. But there's a problem over time. Zero inheritance tax creates a society where there is a permanent group who own all the money/property forever. (Overly simplistic on the wording, but you get the gist.) If I collect stamps (I don’t) or records or books and buy them out of my post tax net income and it turns out some of them grow substantially in value. Is that a taxable asset if I leave the stamp collection to my kid? Honest question not a gotcha." That makes me wonder, is any form of gifting or passing on, taxable? I was thinking mainly of houses as they are often mentioned. What's the tax situation if I go and buy a brand new car today and next week simply give it to a family member? They have benefited with out earning it so does this attract tax | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm not a fan of inheritance tax. I feel if you own something, then you should be able to give it to someone else without anyone paying tax on it. Especially valuable things like a house as you would have paid lots of tax buying it and earning the money to pay for it. I agree with the sentiment. But there's a problem over time. Zero inheritance tax creates a society where there is a permanent group who own all the money/property forever. (Overly simplistic on the wording, but you get the gist.)" I kind of get what your saying but that scenario relies on the person I leave property to being sensible and not blowing it. Then who they leave it to doing the same and so on. If all these generations are that sensible with no breaks then personally I think they deserve to be in a good position. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m with Leroy on this then. If you own it then it is yours to do what you want and give to who you want! As I said above, I agree with the sentiment. But fast forward say a hundred years. You'd have a group who have been squatting on property that's been passed onto them. Effectively, they never had to pay a penny in taxes on those properties. So no money there is going to benefit society & services. But this group is free to live in or earn off the back of this property forever. At the same time, another group who inherited nothing will struggle to ever get any property." If inheritance tax was abolished for houses, the house would stay in the family so why should the same family pay tax on a house that has already had stamp duty and PAYE to pay the mortgage until it was paid. What happens a lot, because house prices are so high is, the kids can't afford the inheritance tax and the house gets sold to pay it off. That is upsetting, the family home lost because the parent dies. The government get the inheritance tax which is likely to be in the hundreds of thousands, depending on the value of the estate and house, they then get another go at taxing it when the house is sold through stamp duty, that would be tens of thousands. I hate the thought of this... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m with Leroy on this then. If you own it then it is yours to do what you want and give to who you want! As I said above, I agree with the sentiment. But fast forward say a hundred years. You'd have a group who have been squatting on property that's been passed onto them. Effectively, they never had to pay a penny in taxes on those properties. So no money there is going to benefit society & services. But this group is free to live in or earn off the back of this property forever. At the same time, another group who inherited nothing will struggle to ever get any property. If inheritance tax was abolished for houses, the house would stay in the family so why should the same family pay tax on a house that has already had stamp duty and PAYE to pay the mortgage until it was paid. What happens a lot, because house prices are so high is, the kids can't afford the inheritance tax and the house gets sold to pay it off. That is upsetting, the family home lost because the parent dies. The government get the inheritance tax which is likely to be in the hundreds of thousands, depending on the value of the estate and house, they then get another go at taxing it when the house is sold through stamp duty, that would be tens of thousands. I hate the thought of this..." I agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That makes me wonder, is any form of gifting or passing on, taxable? I was thinking mainly of houses as they are often mentioned. What's the tax situation if I go and buy a brand new car today and next week simply give it to a family member?" Basically, there is no tax on gifts. You can give whatever you want to whomever you want. But if you give a gift to someone that stands to inherit when you die, HMRC can consider whether the gift might be avoiding inheritance tax. The general rule is that you have to live for 7 years after the gift for the recipient to be clear on IHT avoidance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just on inheritance tax, just a few principles: If an individual was to receive between £50k-£320k as a lump sump, free of tax, would that be considered a very significant or even life changing amount of money? If they receive this money they have an opportunity to be permanently wealthier. No deposit to save for a house. Lower interest rates. Starting a business. Invest in an ISA or pension. The results of these investments pass on to their children. A permanent, enduring advantage. This advantage is unearned, in any way by the recipients. The large parts of the population benefit from substantially more and some substantially less. Even zero. There is also a very good chance that the money being inherited grew passively in value. A property was bought and it increased in value with no work done. The same with many financial investments. I have not suggested that the tax free sum is removed. This free money will still be available to some people but not others. Should they receive £500k tax free? £1 million? £10 million? Is there any limit to the logic that you bought it and paid tax on it so it's yours forever? You would pay capital gains tax on investments or your non-residential property under normal circumstances. If you choose to blow it all, your just a fool. So, why should one family, working just as hard never receive such a huge, free, financial advantage when another doesn't? Is there an acknowledgement that this leads to an, unearned, cumulative generational advantage or not?" You say "if an individual" I say "my family" This is where we differ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just on inheritance tax, just a few principles: If an individual was to receive between £50k-£320k as a lump sump, free of tax, would that be considered a very significant or even life changing amount of money? If they receive this money they have an opportunity to be permanently wealthier. No deposit to save for a house. Lower interest rates. Starting a business. Invest in an ISA or pension. The results of these investments pass on to their children. A permanent, enduring advantage. This advantage is unearned, in any way by the recipients. The large parts of the population benefit from substantially more and some substantially less. Even zero. There is also a very good chance that the money being inherited grew passively in value. A property was bought and it increased in value with no work done. The same with many financial investments. I have not suggested that the tax free sum is removed. This free money will still be available to some people but not others. Should they receive £500k tax free? £1 million? £10 million? Is there any limit to the logic that you bought it and paid tax on it so it's yours forever? You would pay capital gains tax on investments or your non-residential property under normal circumstances. If you choose to blow it all, your just a fool. So, why should one family, working just as hard never receive such a huge, free, financial advantage when another doesn't? Is there an acknowledgement that this leads to an, unearned, cumulative generational advantage or not? You say "if an individual" I say "my family" This is where we differ" Try answering what was asked about individuals. Then think about "your family". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Individual vs My Family = again I agree. I know I have already said this but I don’t agree with death duties/IHT. I certainly don’t agree about a wealth tax. We (the UK) should be better at ensuring we collect the right amount of tax during a person’s (or company) lifetime. The reason places like Italy and Greece are so fixated on property taxes and death tax is fixed assets are harder to hide and there is huge tax evasion re income tax across the social spectrum. In the UK tax evasion and most avoidance is the preserve of the rich. I know this is somewhat tangential but what about the funding of care for the elderly? Two people who have had similar or same incomes through their working life are treated totally differently based on whether they rented or bought their home. The former has their care paid by the state, the latter has to sell their home to pay for their care. How is that fair?" It isn't property tax, it's inheritance tax that can practically be collected. Current wealth is too slippery and variable. The point is about entrenched, unearned, generational advantage. All income should be taxed as income and all capital on its gain when realised (as happens on death). Some allowance for genuine entrepreneurial investment rather than buying and selling financial assets, which is just trading. I was keeping it to the capital taxation side. Elderly care is a huge topic. You did not actually address my points. You swerved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Individual vs My Family = again I agree. I know I have already said this but I don’t agree with death duties/IHT. I certainly don’t agree about a wealth tax. We (the UK) should be better at ensuring we collect the right amount of tax during a person’s (or company) lifetime. The reason places like Italy and Greece are so fixated on property taxes and death tax is fixed assets are harder to hide and there is huge tax evasion re income tax across the social spectrum. In the UK tax evasion and most avoidance is the preserve of the rich. I know this is somewhat tangential but what about the funding of care for the elderly? Two people who have had similar or same incomes through their working life are treated totally differently based on whether they rented or bought their home. The former has their care paid by the state, the latter has to sell their home to pay for their care. How is that fair? It isn't property tax, it's inheritance tax that can practically be collected. Current wealth is too slippery and variable. The point is about entrenched, unearned, generational advantage. All income should be taxed as income and all capital on its gain when realised (as happens on death). Some allowance for genuine entrepreneurial investment rather than buying and selling financial assets, which is just trading. I was keeping it to the capital taxation side. Elderly care is a huge topic. You did not actually address my points. You swerved." Not so much a swerve as a quandary and a “I don’t know”. It is the dilemma of being a centrist...where do I draw my centre line? Morally I want to ensure we have a more equitable society that looks after the poor and the vulnerable. However, I think tax should be fair and not punitive and in my mind I do not see death duties as fair when a person has been taxed on all their earnings and purchases throughout their life. Another way of looking at this... Over the course of my adult life I have been subject to various different tax regimes with different income tax bands, VAT rates, stamp duty rates, IHT rates, CGT rates, dividend rates etc etc. Another person who was born a decade or two before or after me will therefore have been subject to a different tax regime to me. So we will not have been taxed the same in our lifetimes. So why should we be taxed the same in death? You’ll probably say it is the beneficiaries who are taxed which is of course correct, but the value of the estate has been affected differently to reach that point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Individual vs My Family = again I agree. I know I have already said this but I don’t agree with death duties/IHT. I certainly don’t agree about a wealth tax. We (the UK) should be better at ensuring we collect the right amount of tax during a person’s (or company) lifetime. The reason places like Italy and Greece are so fixated on property taxes and death tax is fixed assets are harder to hide and there is huge tax evasion re income tax across the social spectrum. In the UK tax evasion and most avoidance is the preserve of the rich. I know this is somewhat tangential but what about the funding of care for the elderly? Two people who have had similar or same incomes through their working life are treated totally differently based on whether they rented or bought their home. The former has their care paid by the state, the latter has to sell their home to pay for their care. How is that fair? It isn't property tax, it's inheritance tax that can practically be collected. Current wealth is too slippery and variable. The point is about entrenched, unearned, generational advantage. All income should be taxed as income and all capital on its gain when realised (as happens on death). Some allowance for genuine entrepreneurial investment rather than buying and selling financial assets, which is just trading. I was keeping it to the capital taxation side. Elderly care is a huge topic. You did not actually address my points. You swerved. Not so much a swerve as a quandary and a “I don’t know”. It is the dilemma of being a centrist...where do I draw my centre line? Morally I want to ensure we have a more equitable society that looks after the poor and the vulnerable. However, I think tax should be fair and not punitive and in my mind I do not see death duties as fair when a person has been taxed on all their earnings and purchases throughout their life. Another way of looking at this... Over the course of my adult life I have been subject to various different tax regimes with different income tax bands, VAT rates, stamp duty rates, IHT rates, CGT rates, dividend rates etc etc. Another person who was born a decade or two before or after me will therefore have been subject to a different tax regime to me. So we will not have been taxed the same in our lifetimes. So why should we be taxed the same in death? You’ll probably say it is the beneficiaries who are taxed which is of course correct, but the value of the estate has been affected differently to reach that point." I agree with you on the subject of inheritance tax | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Individual vs My Family = again I agree. I know I have already said this but I don’t agree with death duties/IHT. I certainly don’t agree about a wealth tax. We (the UK) should be better at ensuring we collect the right amount of tax during a person’s (or company) lifetime. The reason places like Italy and Greece are so fixated on property taxes and death tax is fixed assets are harder to hide and there is huge tax evasion re income tax across the social spectrum. In the UK tax evasion and most avoidance is the preserve of the rich. I know this is somewhat tangential but what about the funding of care for the elderly? Two people who have had similar or same incomes through their working life are treated totally differently based on whether they rented or bought their home. The former has their care paid by the state, the latter has to sell their home to pay for their care. How is that fair? It isn't property tax, it's inheritance tax that can practically be collected. Current wealth is too slippery and variable. The point is about entrenched, unearned, generational advantage. All income should be taxed as income and all capital on its gain when realised (as happens on death). Some allowance for genuine entrepreneurial investment rather than buying and selling financial assets, which is just trading. I was keeping it to the capital taxation side. Elderly care is a huge topic. You did not actually address my points. You swerved. Not so much a swerve as a quandary and a “I don’t know”. It is the dilemma of being a centrist...where do I draw my centre line? Morally I want to ensure we have a more equitable society that looks after the poor and the vulnerable. However, I think tax should be fair and not punitive and in my mind I do not see death duties as fair when a person has been taxed on all their earnings and purchases throughout their life. Another way of looking at this... Over the course of my adult life I have been subject to various different tax regimes with different income tax bands, VAT rates, stamp duty rates, IHT rates, CGT rates, dividend rates etc etc. Another person who was born a decade or two before or after me will therefore have been subject to a different tax regime to me. So we will not have been taxed the same in our lifetimes. So why should we be taxed the same in death? You’ll probably say it is the beneficiaries who are taxed which is of course correct, but the value of the estate has been affected differently to reach that point. I agree with you on the subject of inheritance tax "If scrapping or reducing inheritance tax was in a manifesto I would more than likely be putting my X in that parties box. I now I don't vote for a party but I would be voting for that parties local MP to me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Individual vs My Family = again I agree. I know I have already said this but I don’t agree with death duties/IHT. I certainly don’t agree about a wealth tax. We (the UK) should be better at ensuring we collect the right amount of tax during a person’s (or company) lifetime. The reason places like Italy and Greece are so fixated on property taxes and death tax is fixed assets are harder to hide and there is huge tax evasion re income tax across the social spectrum. In the UK tax evasion and most avoidance is the preserve of the rich. I know this is somewhat tangential but what about the funding of care for the elderly? Two people who have had similar or same incomes through their working life are treated totally differently based on whether they rented or bought their home. The former has their care paid by the state, the latter has to sell their home to pay for their care. How is that fair? It isn't property tax, it's inheritance tax that can practically be collected. Current wealth is too slippery and variable. The point is about entrenched, unearned, generational advantage. All income should be taxed as income and all capital on its gain when realised (as happens on death). Some allowance for genuine entrepreneurial investment rather than buying and selling financial assets, which is just trading. I was keeping it to the capital taxation side. Elderly care is a huge topic. You did not actually address my points. You swerved. Not so much a swerve as a quandary and a “I don’t know”. It is the dilemma of being a centrist...where do I draw my centre line? Morally I want to ensure we have a more equitable society that looks after the poor and the vulnerable. However, I think tax should be fair and not punitive and in my mind I do not see death duties as fair when a person has been taxed on all their earnings and purchases throughout their life. Another way of looking at this... Over the course of my adult life I have been subject to various different tax regimes with different income tax bands, VAT rates, stamp duty rates, IHT rates, CGT rates, dividend rates etc etc. Another person who was born a decade or two before or after me will therefore have been subject to a different tax regime to me. So we will not have been taxed the same in our lifetimes. So why should we be taxed the same in death? You’ll probably say it is the beneficiaries who are taxed which is of course correct, but the value of the estate has been affected differently to reach that point. I agree with you on the subject of inheritance tax
If scrapping or reducing inheritance tax was in a manifesto I would more than likely be putting my X in that parties box. I now I don't vote for a party but I would be voting for that parties local MP to me "You still are not working through the logic of it as any other tax. You are applying a pre-determined position without analysis, I think. I imagine because it would make it harder to justify to yourself. This is one of the few topics where you have done that. Is that fair? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite an emotive subject. “Tax the rich” is likely to garner a lot of support as the majority of people aren’t “rich”. However, how do you define rich? What about regional variations? I think I said this further up but someone in Humberside with a £350k house is going to be considered wealthy (possibly rich even). But someone in London will be lucky to get an ok 1 bed flat in most boroughs. Are they wealthy or rich? And if I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I have earned or purchased, then why shouldn’t I be able to leave everything I have to my kids? Why should the tax man get a chunk? Yep there are counter arguments about investment portfolios etc. That is why I maintain the primary family home should be exempt. " Then nobody should pay capital gains tax on anything, even it is effectively income at that point in time. The same if you live in Hull or Kensington. What if you live in London and your children live in Wigan? Should we have regional income taxes too? Also, on that logic, we only ever tax once. So, no VAT, no vehicle licence etc. etc. It is a capital gains tax on the beneficiary. Should inheritance tax be zero so that an unlimited amount of money can be passed on and continue to be accumulated by a small group of families? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite an emotive subject. “Tax the rich” is likely to garner a lot of support as the majority of people aren’t “rich”. However, how do you define rich? What about regional variations? I think I said this further up but someone in Humberside with a £350k house is going to be considered wealthy (possibly rich even). But someone in London will be lucky to get an ok 1 bed flat in most boroughs. Are they wealthy or rich? And if I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I have earned or purchased, then why shouldn’t I be able to leave everything I have to my kids? Why should the tax man get a chunk? Yep there are counter arguments about investment portfolios etc. That is why I maintain the primary family home should be exempt. Then nobody should pay capital gains tax on anything, even it is effectively income at that point in time. The same if you live in Hull or Kensington. What if you live in London and your children live in Wigan? Should we have regional income taxes too? Also, on that logic, we only ever tax once. So, no VAT, no vehicle licence etc. etc. It is a capital gains tax on the beneficiary. Should inheritance tax be zero so that an unlimited amount of money can be passed on and continue to be accumulated by a small group of families?" My honest answer is “I don’t know” but for debating purposes I will say to the last point “why shouldn’t it?” (and challenge the “small group of families” point). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite an emotive subject. “Tax the rich” is likely to garner a lot of support as the majority of people aren’t “rich”. However, how do you define rich? What about regional variations? I think I said this further up but someone in Humberside with a £350k house is going to be considered wealthy (possibly rich even). But someone in London will be lucky to get an ok 1 bed flat in most boroughs. Are they wealthy or rich? And if I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I have earned or purchased, then why shouldn’t I be able to leave everything I have to my kids? Why should the tax man get a chunk? Yep there are counter arguments about investment portfolios etc. That is why I maintain the primary family home should be exempt. " I agree on the family home being ring fenced
I find it difficult to understand the view of "they are getting something they haven't had to work for".. Family is what we work for they are usually the inspiration to do well, so they do play a part in the successes and long game.
Other comments such as what is enough money, baffle me too, and that people are happy to think that everything they have worked for will probably be sold off to pay tax owing.
Does not compute at all...
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite an emotive subject. “Tax the rich” is likely to garner a lot of support as the majority of people aren’t “rich”. However, how do you define rich? What about regional variations? I think I said this further up but someone in Humberside with a £350k house is going to be considered wealthy (possibly rich even). But someone in London will be lucky to get an ok 1 bed flat in most boroughs. Are they wealthy or rich? And if I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I have earned or purchased, then why shouldn’t I be able to leave everything I have to my kids? Why should the tax man get a chunk? Yep there are counter arguments about investment portfolios etc. That is why I maintain the primary family home should be exempt. Then nobody should pay capital gains tax on anything, even it is effectively income at that point in time. The same if you live in Hull or Kensington. What if you live in London and your children live in Wigan? Should we have regional income taxes too? Also, on that logic, we only ever tax once. So, no VAT, no vehicle licence etc. etc. It is a capital gains tax on the beneficiary. Should inheritance tax be zero so that an unlimited amount of money can be passed on and continue to be accumulated by a small group of families? My honest answer is “I don’t know” but for debating purposes I will say to the last point “why shouldn’t it?” (and challenge the “small group of families” point)." Really? What is the wealth concentration in the UK currently? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite an emotive subject. “Tax the rich” is likely to garner a lot of support as the majority of people aren’t “rich”. However, how do you define rich? What about regional variations? I think I said this further up but someone in Humberside with a £350k house is going to be considered wealthy (possibly rich even). But someone in London will be lucky to get an ok 1 bed flat in most boroughs. Are they wealthy or rich? And if I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I have earned or purchased, then why shouldn’t I be able to leave everything I have to my kids? Why should the tax man get a chunk? Yep there are counter arguments about investment portfolios etc. That is why I maintain the primary family home should be exempt. Then nobody should pay capital gains tax on anything, even it is effectively income at that point in time. The same if you live in Hull or Kensington. What if you live in London and your children live in Wigan? Should we have regional income taxes too? Also, on that logic, we only ever tax once. So, no VAT, no vehicle licence etc. etc. It is a capital gains tax on the beneficiary. Should inheritance tax be zero so that an unlimited amount of money can be passed on and continue to be accumulated by a small group of families?" 25 million owned homes in the UK, that is not a small group. You will say some are owned and rented, they are not what we are talking about, the family home should be ring fenced. Other property, fair game | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite an emotive subject. “Tax the rich” is likely to garner a lot of support as the majority of people aren’t “rich”. However, how do you define rich? What about regional variations? I think I said this further up but someone in Humberside with a £350k house is going to be considered wealthy (possibly rich even). But someone in London will be lucky to get an ok 1 bed flat in most boroughs. Are they wealthy or rich? And if I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I have earned or purchased, then why shouldn’t I be able to leave everything I have to my kids? Why should the tax man get a chunk? Yep there are counter arguments about investment portfolios etc. That is why I maintain the primary family home should be exempt. I agree on the family home being ring fenced
I find it difficult to understand the view of "they are getting something they haven't had to work for".. Family is what we work for they are usually the inspiration to do well, so they do play a part in the successes and long game.
Other comments such as what is enough money, baffle me too, and that people are happy to think that everything they have worked for will probably be sold off to pay tax owing.
Does not compute at all...
"Have your children worked to earn the money that they will inherit? Should they pay tax on their own income and capital gains which they earned and invested in themselves? Things may be sold off, but £320k plus 60% of everything else. That's a much better tax deal than when you are alive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite an emotive subject. “Tax the rich” is likely to garner a lot of support as the majority of people aren’t “rich”. However, how do you define rich? What about regional variations? I think I said this further up but someone in Humberside with a £350k house is going to be considered wealthy (possibly rich even). But someone in London will be lucky to get an ok 1 bed flat in most boroughs. Are they wealthy or rich? And if I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I have earned or purchased, then why shouldn’t I be able to leave everything I have to my kids? Why should the tax man get a chunk? Yep there are counter arguments about investment portfolios etc. That is why I maintain the primary family home should be exempt. Then nobody should pay capital gains tax on anything, even it is effectively income at that point in time. The same if you live in Hull or Kensington. What if you live in London and your children live in Wigan? Should we have regional income taxes too? Also, on that logic, we only ever tax once. So, no VAT, no vehicle licence etc. etc. It is a capital gains tax on the beneficiary. Should inheritance tax be zero so that an unlimited amount of money can be passed on and continue to be accumulated by a small group of families? 25 million owned homes in the UK, that is not a small group. You will say some are owned and rented, they are not what we are talking about, the family home should be ring fenced. Other property, fair game " Why should your home be treated differently to any other asset? Especially if those who inherit do not live in it now. They have managed perfectly well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite an emotive subject. “Tax the rich” is likely to garner a lot of support as the majority of people aren’t “rich”. However, how do you define rich? What about regional variations? I think I said this further up but someone in Humberside with a £350k house is going to be considered wealthy (possibly rich even). But someone in London will be lucky to get an ok 1 bed flat in most boroughs. Are they wealthy or rich? And if I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I have earned or purchased, then why shouldn’t I be able to leave everything I have to my kids? Why should the tax man get a chunk? Yep there are counter arguments about investment portfolios etc. That is why I maintain the primary family home should be exempt. Then nobody should pay capital gains tax on anything, even it is effectively income at that point in time. The same if you live in Hull or Kensington. What if you live in London and your children live in Wigan? Should we have regional income taxes too? Also, on that logic, we only ever tax once. So, no VAT, no vehicle licence etc. etc. It is a capital gains tax on the beneficiary. Should inheritance tax be zero so that an unlimited amount of money can be passed on and continue to be accumulated by a small group of families? 25 million owned homes in the UK, that is not a small group. You will say some are owned and rented, they are not what we are talking about, the family home should be ring fenced. Other property, fair game Why should your home be treated differently to any other asset? Especially if those who inherit do not live in it now. They have managed perfectly well." I have a question for you, answer or ignore
Inheritance tax: If you had the power to increase, decrease or leave as is.
What would you do and why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite an emotive subject. “Tax the rich” is likely to garner a lot of support as the majority of people aren’t “rich”. However, how do you define rich? What about regional variations? I think I said this further up but someone in Humberside with a £350k house is going to be considered wealthy (possibly rich even). But someone in London will be lucky to get an ok 1 bed flat in most boroughs. Are they wealthy or rich? And if I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I have earned or purchased, then why shouldn’t I be able to leave everything I have to my kids? Why should the tax man get a chunk? Yep there are counter arguments about investment portfolios etc. That is why I maintain the primary family home should be exempt. Then nobody should pay capital gains tax on anything, even it is effectively income at that point in time. The same if you live in Hull or Kensington. What if you live in London and your children live in Wigan? Should we have regional income taxes too? Also, on that logic, we only ever tax once. So, no VAT, no vehicle licence etc. etc. It is a capital gains tax on the beneficiary. Should inheritance tax be zero so that an unlimited amount of money can be passed on and continue to be accumulated by a small group of families? My honest answer is “I don’t know” but for debating purposes I will say to the last point “why shouldn’t it?” (and challenge the “small group of families” point). Really? What is the wealth concentration in the UK currently?" Indeed so why set the threshold at £350k (or whatever it is). Why your negative reaction to £1m or exempting the primary family home? Many ordinary working people have a house worth over the threshold that but they are hardly the landed gentry! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite an emotive subject. “Tax the rich” is likely to garner a lot of support as the majority of people aren’t “rich”. However, how do you define rich? What about regional variations? I think I said this further up but someone in Humberside with a £350k house is going to be considered wealthy (possibly rich even). But someone in London will be lucky to get an ok 1 bed flat in most boroughs. Are they wealthy or rich? And if I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I have earned or purchased, then why shouldn’t I be able to leave everything I have to my kids? Why should the tax man get a chunk? Yep there are counter arguments about investment portfolios etc. That is why I maintain the primary family home should be exempt. Then nobody should pay capital gains tax on anything, even it is effectively income at that point in time. The same if you live in Hull or Kensington. What if you live in London and your children live in Wigan? Should we have regional income taxes too? Also, on that logic, we only ever tax once. So, no VAT, no vehicle licence etc. etc. It is a capital gains tax on the beneficiary. Should inheritance tax be zero so that an unlimited amount of money can be passed on and continue to be accumulated by a small group of families? 25 million owned homes in the UK, that is not a small group. You will say some are owned and rented, they are not what we are talking about, the family home should be ring fenced. Other property, fair game Why should your home be treated differently to any other asset? Especially if those who inherit do not live in it now. They have managed perfectly well. I have a question for you, answer or ignore
Inheritance tax: If you had the power to increase, decrease or leave as is.
What would you do and why? "I know this isn’t to me but will answer anyway abolish  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite an emotive subject. “Tax the rich” is likely to garner a lot of support as the majority of people aren’t “rich”. However, how do you define rich? What about regional variations? I think I said this further up but someone in Humberside with a £350k house is going to be considered wealthy (possibly rich even). But someone in London will be lucky to get an ok 1 bed flat in most boroughs. Are they wealthy or rich? And if I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I have earned or purchased, then why shouldn’t I be able to leave everything I have to my kids? Why should the tax man get a chunk? Yep there are counter arguments about investment portfolios etc. That is why I maintain the primary family home should be exempt. Then nobody should pay capital gains tax on anything, even it is effectively income at that point in time. The same if you live in Hull or Kensington. What if you live in London and your children live in Wigan? Should we have regional income taxes too? Also, on that logic, we only ever tax once. So, no VAT, no vehicle licence etc. etc. It is a capital gains tax on the beneficiary. Should inheritance tax be zero so that an unlimited amount of money can be passed on and continue to be accumulated by a small group of families? 25 million owned homes in the UK, that is not a small group. You will say some are owned and rented, they are not what we are talking about, the family home should be ring fenced. Other property, fair game Why should your home be treated differently to any other asset? Especially if those who inherit do not live in it now. They have managed perfectly well." They might not live in it now, but have you assumed they own their own property? They could be renting and not able to get on the property ladder, due to inflated house prices. If there is more than one child and they decided to sell the house, the government still claws in the stamp duty... again and again and again until the house no longer exists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite an emotive subject. “Tax the rich” is likely to garner a lot of support as the majority of people aren’t “rich”. However, how do you define rich? What about regional variations? I think I said this further up but someone in Humberside with a £350k house is going to be considered wealthy (possibly rich even). But someone in London will be lucky to get an ok 1 bed flat in most boroughs. Are they wealthy or rich? And if I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I have earned or purchased, then why shouldn’t I be able to leave everything I have to my kids? Why should the tax man get a chunk? Yep there are counter arguments about investment portfolios etc. That is why I maintain the primary family home should be exempt. Then nobody should pay capital gains tax on anything, even it is effectively income at that point in time. The same if you live in Hull or Kensington. What if you live in London and your children live in Wigan? Should we have regional income taxes too? Also, on that logic, we only ever tax once. So, no VAT, no vehicle licence etc. etc. It is a capital gains tax on the beneficiary. Should inheritance tax be zero so that an unlimited amount of money can be passed on and continue to be accumulated by a small group of families? 25 million owned homes in the UK, that is not a small group. You will say some are owned and rented, they are not what we are talking about, the family home should be ring fenced. Other property, fair game Why should your home be treated differently to any other asset? Especially if those who inherit do not live in it now. They have managed perfectly well. I have a question for you, answer or ignore
Inheritance tax: If you had the power to increase, decrease or leave as is.
What would you do and why? "I would probably band it the same as income tax. It is, effectively, income to those who receive it. Will you engage with the rest of the discussion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite an emotive subject. “Tax the rich” is likely to garner a lot of support as the majority of people aren’t “rich”. However, how do you define rich? What about regional variations? I think I said this further up but someone in Humberside with a £350k house is going to be considered wealthy (possibly rich even). But someone in London will be lucky to get an ok 1 bed flat in most boroughs. Are they wealthy or rich? And if I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I have earned or purchased, then why shouldn’t I be able to leave everything I have to my kids? Why should the tax man get a chunk? Yep there are counter arguments about investment portfolios etc. That is why I maintain the primary family home should be exempt. Then nobody should pay capital gains tax on anything, even it is effectively income at that point in time. The same if you live in Hull or Kensington. What if you live in London and your children live in Wigan? Should we have regional income taxes too? Also, on that logic, we only ever tax once. So, no VAT, no vehicle licence etc. etc. It is a capital gains tax on the beneficiary. Should inheritance tax be zero so that an unlimited amount of money can be passed on and continue to be accumulated by a small group of families? 25 million owned homes in the UK, that is not a small group. You will say some are owned and rented, they are not what we are talking about, the family home should be ring fenced. Other property, fair game Why should your home be treated differently to any other asset? Especially if those who inherit do not live in it now. They have managed perfectly well. I have a question for you, answer or ignore
Inheritance tax: If you had the power to increase, decrease or leave as is.
What would you do and why?
I know this isn’t to me but will answer anyway abolish "You can certainly join in, but good if you engage with the full discussion around it. Why abolish with respect to what I've outlined? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite an emotive subject. “Tax the rich” is likely to garner a lot of support as the majority of people aren’t “rich”. However, how do you define rich? What about regional variations? I think I said this further up but someone in Humberside with a £350k house is going to be considered wealthy (possibly rich even). But someone in London will be lucky to get an ok 1 bed flat in most boroughs. Are they wealthy or rich? And if I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I have earned or purchased, then why shouldn’t I be able to leave everything I have to my kids? Why should the tax man get a chunk? Yep there are counter arguments about investment portfolios etc. That is why I maintain the primary family home should be exempt. Then nobody should pay capital gains tax on anything, even it is effectively income at that point in time. The same if you live in Hull or Kensington. What if you live in London and your children live in Wigan? Should we have regional income taxes too? Also, on that logic, we only ever tax once. So, no VAT, no vehicle licence etc. etc. It is a capital gains tax on the beneficiary. Should inheritance tax be zero so that an unlimited amount of money can be passed on and continue to be accumulated by a small group of families? 25 million owned homes in the UK, that is not a small group. You will say some are owned and rented, they are not what we are talking about, the family home should be ring fenced. Other property, fair game Why should your home be treated differently to any other asset? Especially if those who inherit do not live in it now. They have managed perfectly well. They might not live in it now, but have you assumed they own their own property? They could be renting and not able to get on the property ladder, due to inflated house prices. If there is more than one child and they decided to sell the house, the government still claws in the stamp duty... again and again and again until the house no longer exists." It doesn't matter. It is there life which they have made of as they can. Just like those who have no inheritance to plan around. Why should the family home be ring fenced after those living in it are gone? It is just a property then, like any other. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite an emotive subject. “Tax the rich” is likely to garner a lot of support as the majority of people aren’t “rich”. However, how do you define rich? What about regional variations? I think I said this further up but someone in Humberside with a £350k house is going to be considered wealthy (possibly rich even). But someone in London will be lucky to get an ok 1 bed flat in most boroughs. Are they wealthy or rich? And if I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I have earned or purchased, then why shouldn’t I be able to leave everything I have to my kids? Why should the tax man get a chunk? Yep there are counter arguments about investment portfolios etc. That is why I maintain the primary family home should be exempt. Then nobody should pay capital gains tax on anything, even it is effectively income at that point in time. The same if you live in Hull or Kensington. What if you live in London and your children live in Wigan? Should we have regional income taxes too? Also, on that logic, we only ever tax once. So, no VAT, no vehicle licence etc. etc. It is a capital gains tax on the beneficiary. Should inheritance tax be zero so that an unlimited amount of money can be passed on and continue to be accumulated by a small group of families? 25 million owned homes in the UK, that is not a small group. You will say some are owned and rented, they are not what we are talking about, the family home should be ring fenced. Other property, fair game Why should your home be treated differently to any other asset? Especially if those who inherit do not live in it now. They have managed perfectly well. They might not live in it now, but have you assumed they own their own property? They could be renting and not able to get on the property ladder, due to inflated house prices. If there is more than one child and they decided to sell the house, the government still claws in the stamp duty... again and again and again until the house no longer exists. It doesn't matter. It is there life which they have made of as they can. Just like those who have no inheritance to plan around. Why should the family home be ring fenced after those living in it are gone? It is just a property then, like any other." A family home with memories that belongs to the family. I can see our different view points are never going to change or even merge into a compromise. Sometimes it's not only about the black and white | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite an emotive subject. “Tax the rich” is likely to garner a lot of support as the majority of people aren’t “rich”. However, how do you define rich? What about regional variations? I think I said this further up but someone in Humberside with a £350k house is going to be considered wealthy (possibly rich even). But someone in London will be lucky to get an ok 1 bed flat in most boroughs. Are they wealthy or rich? And if I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I have earned or purchased, then why shouldn’t I be able to leave everything I have to my kids? Why should the tax man get a chunk? Yep there are counter arguments about investment portfolios etc. That is why I maintain the primary family home should be exempt. Then nobody should pay capital gains tax on anything, even it is effectively income at that point in time. The same if you live in Hull or Kensington. What if you live in London and your children live in Wigan? Should we have regional income taxes too? Also, on that logic, we only ever tax once. So, no VAT, no vehicle licence etc. etc. It is a capital gains tax on the beneficiary. Should inheritance tax be zero so that an unlimited amount of money can be passed on and continue to be accumulated by a small group of families? 25 million owned homes in the UK, that is not a small group. You will say some are owned and rented, they are not what we are talking about, the family home should be ring fenced. Other property, fair game Why should your home be treated differently to any other asset? Especially if those who inherit do not live in it now. They have managed perfectly well. They might not live in it now, but have you assumed they own their own property? They could be renting and not able to get on the property ladder, due to inflated house prices. If there is more than one child and they decided to sell the house, the government still claws in the stamp duty... again and again and again until the house no longer exists. It doesn't matter. It is there life which they have made of as they can. Just like those who have no inheritance to plan around. Why should the family home be ring fenced after those living in it are gone? It is just a property then, like any other. A family home with memories that belongs to the family. I can see our different view points are never going to change or even merge into a compromise. Sometimes it's not only about the black and white " You haven't engaged on the black and white yet. Not that it will necessarily would change your view, but I'm interested. So a multi-million pound estate of a billionaire should not be taxed either? Because of the memories? What if the memories are all negative or it is viewed as just an asset by those who inherit it? It was a property bought after they left. That is often the case? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite an emotive subject. “Tax the rich” is likely to garner a lot of support as the majority of people aren’t “rich”. However, how do you define rich? What about regional variations? I think I said this further up but someone in Humberside with a £350k house is going to be considered wealthy (possibly rich even). But someone in London will be lucky to get an ok 1 bed flat in most boroughs. Are they wealthy or rich? And if I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I have earned or purchased, then why shouldn’t I be able to leave everything I have to my kids? Why should the tax man get a chunk? Yep there are counter arguments about investment portfolios etc. That is why I maintain the primary family home should be exempt. Then nobody should pay capital gains tax on anything, even it is effectively income at that point in time. The same if you live in Hull or Kensington. What if you live in London and your children live in Wigan? Should we have regional income taxes too? Also, on that logic, we only ever tax once. So, no VAT, no vehicle licence etc. etc. It is a capital gains tax on the beneficiary. Should inheritance tax be zero so that an unlimited amount of money can be passed on and continue to be accumulated by a small group of families? 25 million owned homes in the UK, that is not a small group. You will say some are owned and rented, they are not what we are talking about, the family home should be ring fenced. Other property, fair game Why should your home be treated differently to any other asset? Especially if those who inherit do not live in it now. They have managed perfectly well. They might not live in it now, but have you assumed they own their own property? They could be renting and not able to get on the property ladder, due to inflated house prices. If there is more than one child and they decided to sell the house, the government still claws in the stamp duty... again and again and again until the house no longer exists. It doesn't matter. It is there life which they have made of as they can. Just like those who have no inheritance to plan around. Why should the family home be ring fenced after those living in it are gone? It is just a property then, like any other. A family home with memories that belongs to the family. I can see our different view points are never going to change or even merge into a compromise. Sometimes it's not only about the black and white You haven't engaged on the black and white yet. Not that it will necessarily would change your view, but I'm interested. So a multi-million pound estate of a billionaire should not be taxed either? Because of the memories? What if the memories are all negative or it is viewed as just an asset by those who inherit it? It was a property bought after they left. That is often the case?" The family home no, but if it is a billionaire I will assume there are multiple dwellings and the estate assets are considerable in value. Millions will be collected in inheritance tax, just not from the value of the family home. If the home is sold stamp duty will be paid. This in my opinion should be no different for anyone and allows the same benefits those at the bottom end of this black and white scenario. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Family home is emotive. If your parents moved out of the city to the country, when their kids were all 40, does that count as a family home ? Would people be okay if a millionaire "moved" into a house that is 10x where they lived so that their capital became iht free. The question for me is IHT or higher income tax ? Which is the better approach. Would you rather your kids have less in their take-home pay so you can leave more in the future ... Which is likely to reduce unfairness quicker ... Especially given the really wealthy dont have to work !" Your view is on the very wealthy, they are not really going to be having many problems with inheritance tax, I would have thought. Consider those who are average or below, they still need to find the 40% if they are left their parents estate and it is worth over 325K, and let's face it many are and going forward man many more will be. I'm not concerned about all the other homes and trappings, just the main home as that is what probably applies to the vast majority. It is proportional | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Family home is emotive. If your parents moved out of the city to the country, when their kids were all 40, does that count as a family home ? Would people be okay if a millionaire "moved" into a house that is 10x where they lived so that their capital became iht free. The question for me is IHT or higher income tax ? Which is the better approach. Would you rather your kids have less in their take-home pay so you can leave more in the future ... Which is likely to reduce unfairness quicker ... Especially given the really wealthy dont have to work ! Your view is on the very wealthy, they are not really going to be having many problems with inheritance tax, I would have thought. Consider those who are average or below, they still need to find the 40% if they are left their parents estate and it is worth over 325K, and let's face it many are and going forward man many more will be. I'm not concerned about all the other homes and trappings, just the main home as that is what probably applies to the vast majority. It is proportional" iht could banded. The concern it seems is that someone may have to sell the "family home" to find the tax. It's unlikely that itd selling the home from under the beneficiaries (and there are ways around this I imagine. Effectively a charge on the home or something). And there are ways around selling the house. Get term assurance for the tax. But again. IHT in the future or extra income tax today for your kids? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Family home is emotive. If your parents moved out of the city to the country, when their kids were all 40, does that count as a family home ? Would people be okay if a millionaire "moved" into a house that is 10x where they lived so that their capital became iht free. The question for me is IHT or higher income tax ? Which is the better approach. Would you rather your kids have less in their take-home pay so you can leave more in the future ... Which is likely to reduce unfairness quicker ... Especially given the really wealthy dont have to work ! Your view is on the very wealthy, they are not really going to be having many problems with inheritance tax, I would have thought. Consider those who are average or below, they still need to find the 40% if they are left their parents estate and it is worth over 325K, and let's face it many are and going forward man many more will be. I'm not concerned about all the other homes and trappings, just the main home as that is what probably applies to the vast majority. It is proportionaliht could banded. The concern it seems is that someone may have to sell the "family home" to find the tax. It's unlikely that itd selling the home from under the beneficiaries (and there are ways around this I imagine. Effectively a charge on the home or something). And there are ways around selling the house. Get term assurance for the tax. But again. IHT in the future or extra income tax today for your kids? " Why does it have to be a binary choice? How about the UK Govt collects the correct amount of tax from individuals and companies as a starting point. No sweetheart deals. No tax haven trusts or holding companies with IP royalty payments. Do that and we don’t need new ways to collect tax (wealth tax) and increase IHT threshold to take account of how much house prices have increased (or better still see my point above re primary home exemptions). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. " Same situation for me too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Family home is emotive. If your parents moved out of the city to the country, when their kids were all 40, does that count as a family home ? Would people be okay if a millionaire "moved" into a house that is 10x where they lived so that their capital became iht free. The question for me is IHT or higher income tax ? Which is the better approach. Would you rather your kids have less in their take-home pay so you can leave more in the future ... Which is likely to reduce unfairness quicker ... Especially given the really wealthy dont have to work ! Your view is on the very wealthy, they are not really going to be having many problems with inheritance tax, I would have thought. Consider those who are average or below, they still need to find the 40% if they are left their parents estate and it is worth over 325K, and let's face it many are and going forward man many more will be. I'm not concerned about all the other homes and trappings, just the main home as that is what probably applies to the vast majority. It is proportional" So you have no problem with inheritance tax in principle? What if the "family" home is a flat or retirement home bought a few years ago that none of the family has lived in? Why should one family be able to pass on £1m and one only £250k? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Family home is emotive. If your parents moved out of the city to the country, when their kids were all 40, does that count as a family home ? Would people be okay if a millionaire "moved" into a house that is 10x where they lived so that their capital became iht free. The question for me is IHT or higher income tax ? Which is the better approach. Would you rather your kids have less in their take-home pay so you can leave more in the future ... Which is likely to reduce unfairness quicker ... Especially given the really wealthy dont have to work ! Your view is on the very wealthy, they are not really going to be having many problems with inheritance tax, I would have thought. Consider those who are average or below, they still need to find the 40% if they are left their parents estate and it is worth over 325K, and let's face it many are and going forward man many more will be. I'm not concerned about all the other homes and trappings, just the main home as that is what probably applies to the vast majority. It is proportionaliht could banded. The concern it seems is that someone may have to sell the "family home" to find the tax. It's unlikely that itd selling the home from under the beneficiaries (and there are ways around this I imagine. Effectively a charge on the home or something). And there are ways around selling the house. Get term assurance for the tax. But again. IHT in the future or extra income tax today for your kids? Why does it have to be a binary choice? How about the UK Govt collects the correct amount of tax from individuals and companies as a starting point. No sweetheart deals. No tax haven trusts or holding companies with IP royalty payments. Do that and we don’t need new ways to collect tax (wealth tax) and increase IHT threshold to take account of how much house prices have increased (or better still see my point above re primary home exemptions)." That still creates an entrenched wealth gap as one generation is able to pass on large amounts of capital which in turn allows more to be accumulated and passed on. Unearned riches growing with each generation. That's OK then? Why should your mix of assets affect how much you can pass on tax free? Why can someone with an expensive property pass on more than someone with land or financial assets? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too "So? Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?"I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this. It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it. I need to draw a line under this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this "So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit? Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadia whittome MP says we need "ambition for the future, taxing the rich". How does taxing success relate to ambition for the future?" but what happens when the rich leave the country?….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadia whittome MP says we need "ambition for the future, taxing the rich". How does taxing success relate to ambition for the future? but what happens when the rich leave the country?….." Nothing, if they're not paying much tax anyway, who cares. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
"I'm starting to see a pattern with people who start their posts off with "so". Your first paragraph, I have indicated nowhere that to be the case, that is what you think about things not me. Same as the second, in fact you have basically ranted a response without taking anytime to read the other posts that go into this a little deeper. I guess you feel that you have told me, and if that gave you a little moment great, fill your boots | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
I'm starting to see a pattern with people who start their posts off with "so".
Your first paragraph, I have indicated nowhere that to be the case, that is what you think about things not me.
Same as the second, in fact you have basically ranted a response without taking anytime to read the other posts that go into this a little deeper.
I guess you feel that you have told me, and if that gave you a little moment great, fill your boots "Forgive me, but, and I paraphrase, you believe your children deserve whatever you intend to bequeath them - is that accurate? My point is that deserve is a funny word and do kids that start with nothing deserve that too? Or are they just unlucky? I wasn't 'telling' you anything, I was asking you a question about principles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
I'm starting to see a pattern with people who start their posts off with "so".
Your first paragraph, I have indicated nowhere that to be the case, that is what you think about things not me.
Same as the second, in fact you have basically ranted a response without taking anytime to read the other posts that go into this a little deeper.
I guess you feel that you have told me, and if that gave you a little moment great, fill your boots
Forgive me, but, and I paraphrase, you believe your children deserve whatever you intend to bequeath them - is that accurate?
My point is that deserve is a funny word and do kids that start with nothing deserve that too? Or are they just unlucky?
I wasn't 'telling' you anything, I was asking you a question about principles.
"I will repeat myself for your benefit. If you read the thread, you will see what I'm replying too. To help you out further... Another poster has said more than once a child does not deserve inheritance because they have not worked for it, I said that saddens me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
"unfortunatley life aint fair and never will be,my mum scrimped and saved to buy her house, worked two jobs for 15 years to be able to do so, and yea me and my bruv will get half wen my mum passes away and her grandkids will get the other half,as for kids whos parents were feckless or addicts well thats on there parents no one else | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
I'm starting to see a pattern with people who start their posts off with "so".
Your first paragraph, I have indicated nowhere that to be the case, that is what you think about things not me.
Same as the second, in fact you have basically ranted a response without taking anytime to read the other posts that go into this a little deeper.
I guess you feel that you have told me, and if that gave you a little moment great, fill your boots
Forgive me, but, and I paraphrase, you believe your children deserve whatever you intend to bequeath them - is that accurate?
My point is that deserve is a funny word and do kids that start with nothing deserve that too? Or are they just unlucky?
I wasn't 'telling' you anything, I was asking you a question about principles.
"But why is it always punitive? Why is it always “I don’t have it so you shouldn’t have it”? Why is it always reductive? Without a shadow of doubt there are people who get dealt a bad hand in life. They are poor and remain poor. There are all manner of reasons for this. Some are environmental (inc education, parents) and some are personal (work ethic and intelligence). But some people transcend or escape the “poverty trap”. Some people are genuinely self made. Not everyone who is “better off” or “wealthy” or “rich” was born with a silver spoon. So why shouldn’t they want to leave all their assets (purchased with post tax income and also taxed on purchase) to their kids to give them a better start then they themselves got? It appears the only reason is because other kids do not get that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
I'm starting to see a pattern with people who start their posts off with "so".
Your first paragraph, I have indicated nowhere that to be the case, that is what you think about things not me.
Same as the second, in fact you have basically ranted a response without taking anytime to read the other posts that go into this a little deeper.
I guess you feel that you have told me, and if that gave you a little moment great, fill your boots
Forgive me, but, and I paraphrase, you believe your children deserve whatever you intend to bequeath them - is that accurate?
My point is that deserve is a funny word and do kids that start with nothing deserve that too? Or are they just unlucky?
I wasn't 'telling' you anything, I was asking you a question about principles.
But why is it always punitive? Why is it always “I don’t have it so you shouldn’t have it”? Why is it always reductive?
Without a shadow of doubt there are people who get dealt a bad hand in life. They are poor and remain poor. There are all manner of reasons for this. Some are environmental (inc education, parents) and some are personal (work ethic and intelligence).
But some people transcend or escape the “poverty trap”. Some people are genuinely self made. Not everyone who is “better off” or “wealthy” or “rich” was born with a silver spoon.
So why shouldn’t they want to leave all their assets (purchased with post tax income and also taxed on purchase) to their kids to give them a better start then they themselves got?
It appears the only reason is because other kids do not get that."This gets 3 thumbs up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
unfortunatley life aint fair and never will be,my mum scrimped and saved to buy her house, worked two jobs for 15 years to be able to do so, and yea me and my bruv will get half wen my mum passes away and her grandkids will get the other half,as for kids whos parents were feckless or addicts well thats on there parents no one else"Ok, so I'm bigger and stronger than you, I'll take your car keys thanks. I'm allowed because life isn't fair. Happy with that too? Right, I understand, kids who have done nothing wrong at all (they're kids after all) should have lots of their life chances mapped out for them because of their parents. Are you going to volunteer to go round the junior schools telling the kids this or should I? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
unfortunatley life aint fair and never will be,my mum scrimped and saved to buy her house, worked two jobs for 15 years to be able to do so, and yea me and my bruv will get half wen my mum passes away and her grandkids will get the other half,as for kids whos parents were feckless or addicts well thats on there parents no one else
Ok, so I'm bigger and stronger than you, I'll take your car keys thanks. I'm allowed because life isn't fair. Happy with that too?
Right, I understand, kids who have done nothing wrong at all (they're kids after all) should have lots of their life chances mapped out for them because of their parents.
Are you going to volunteer to go round the junior schools telling the kids this or should I?
" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
I'm starting to see a pattern with people who start their posts off with "so".
Your first paragraph, I have indicated nowhere that to be the case, that is what you think about things not me.
Same as the second, in fact you have basically ranted a response without taking anytime to read the other posts that go into this a little deeper.
I guess you feel that you have told me, and if that gave you a little moment great, fill your boots
Forgive me, but, and I paraphrase, you believe your children deserve whatever you intend to bequeath them - is that accurate?
My point is that deserve is a funny word and do kids that start with nothing deserve that too? Or are they just unlucky?
I wasn't 'telling' you anything, I was asking you a question about principles.
But why is it always punitive? Why is it always “I don’t have it so you shouldn’t have it”? Why is it always reductive?
Without a shadow of doubt there are people who get dealt a bad hand in life. They are poor and remain poor. There are all manner of reasons for this. Some are environmental (inc education, parents) and some are personal (work ethic and intelligence).
But some people transcend or escape the “poverty trap”. Some people are genuinely self made. Not everyone who is “better off” or “wealthy” or “rich” was born with a silver spoon.
So why shouldn’t they want to leave all their assets (purchased with post tax income and also taxed on purchase) to their kids to give them a better start then they themselves got?
It appears the only reason is because other kids do not get that."You're missing my point I think. It's not punitive at all. You worked hard, you are entitled to reward yourself however you want, the issue is when what you have done begins to impact on the life chances of someone else. Some people do escape the poverty trap, but most don't, which is why social mobility is so low in this country. It's why doctors children typically become doctors, it's why private school pupils are disproportionately represented at Oxbridge etc etc . All a massive function of 'inheritence' in one form or another. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
unfortunatley life aint fair and never will be,my mum scrimped and saved to buy her house, worked two jobs for 15 years to be able to do so, and yea me and my bruv will get half wen my mum passes away and her grandkids will get the other half,as for kids whos parents were feckless or addicts well thats on there parents no one else
Ok, so I'm bigger and stronger than you, I'll take your car keys thanks. I'm allowed because life isn't fair. Happy with that too?
Right, I understand, kids who have done nothing wrong at all (they're kids after all) should have lots of their life chances mapped out for them because of their parents.
Are you going to volunteer to go round the junior schools telling the kids this or should I?
"You're trying to compare physically taking something to being gifted something. At this point you've lost the argument. Its not anywhere close to a comparison. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
I'm starting to see a pattern with people who start their posts off with "so".
Your first paragraph, I have indicated nowhere that to be the case, that is what you think about things not me.
Same as the second, in fact you have basically ranted a response without taking anytime to read the other posts that go into this a little deeper.
I guess you feel that you have told me, and if that gave you a little moment great, fill your boots
Forgive me, but, and I paraphrase, you believe your children deserve whatever you intend to bequeath them - is that accurate?
My point is that deserve is a funny word and do kids that start with nothing deserve that too? Or are they just unlucky?
I wasn't 'telling' you anything, I was asking you a question about principles.
But why is it always punitive? Why is it always “I don’t have it so you shouldn’t have it”? Why is it always reductive?
Without a shadow of doubt there are people who get dealt a bad hand in life. They are poor and remain poor. There are all manner of reasons for this. Some are environmental (inc education, parents) and some are personal (work ethic and intelligence).
But some people transcend or escape the “poverty trap”. Some people are genuinely self made. Not everyone who is “better off” or “wealthy” or “rich” was born with a silver spoon.
So why shouldn’t they want to leave all their assets (purchased with post tax income and also taxed on purchase) to their kids to give them a better start then they themselves got?
It appears the only reason is because other kids do not get that.
You're missing my point I think. It's not punitive at all. You worked hard, you are entitled to reward yourself however you want, the issue is when what you have done begins to impact on the life chances of someone else.
Some people do escape the poverty trap, but most don't, which is why social mobility is so low in this country. It's why doctors children typically become doctors, it's why private school pupils are disproportionately represented at Oxbridge etc etc . All a massive function of 'inheritence' in one form or another."How does it work for you then? I asked this to the other poster who had remarkably similar notions to you. Do you increase inheritance tax Reduce it scrap it Everything goes to the state | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" luck of the draw on location making some houses worth 20-30 times their original value is not earned wealth. That should be considered for tax. " It's called capital gains tax | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" luck of the draw on location making some houses worth 20-30 times their original value is not earned wealth. That should be considered for tax. It's called capital gains tax" doesn't apply to primary residence tho irrc. Maybe that's a different discussion.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
unfortunatley life aint fair and never will be,my mum scrimped and saved to buy her house, worked two jobs for 15 years to be able to do so, and yea me and my bruv will get half wen my mum passes away and her grandkids will get the other half,as for kids whos parents were feckless or addicts well thats on there parents no one else
Ok, so I'm bigger and stronger than you, I'll take your car keys thanks. I'm allowed because life isn't fair. Happy with that too?
Right, I understand, kids who have done nothing wrong at all (they're kids after all) should have lots of their life chances mapped out for them because of their parents.
Are you going to volunteer to go round the junior schools telling the kids this or should I?
You're trying to compare physically taking something to being gifted something.
At this point you've lost the argument. Its not anywhere close to a comparison."I'm not even genuinely close to making that comparison at all. I'm pointing out that the 'life isn't fair ' argument can be purposed for all sorts of other things too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
I'm starting to see a pattern with people who start their posts off with "so".
Your first paragraph, I have indicated nowhere that to be the case, that is what you think about things not me.
Same as the second, in fact you have basically ranted a response without taking anytime to read the other posts that go into this a little deeper.
I guess you feel that you have told me, and if that gave you a little moment great, fill your boots
Forgive me, but, and I paraphrase, you believe your children deserve whatever you intend to bequeath them - is that accurate?
My point is that deserve is a funny word and do kids that start with nothing deserve that too? Or are they just unlucky?
I wasn't 'telling' you anything, I was asking you a question about principles.
But why is it always punitive? Why is it always “I don’t have it so you shouldn’t have it”? Why is it always reductive?
Without a shadow of doubt there are people who get dealt a bad hand in life. They are poor and remain poor. There are all manner of reasons for this. Some are environmental (inc education, parents) and some are personal (work ethic and intelligence).
But some people transcend or escape the “poverty trap”. Some people are genuinely self made. Not everyone who is “better off” or “wealthy” or “rich” was born with a silver spoon.
So why shouldn’t they want to leave all their assets (purchased with post tax income and also taxed on purchase) to their kids to give them a better start then they themselves got?
It appears the only reason is because other kids do not get that.
You're missing my point I think. It's not punitive at all. You worked hard, you are entitled to reward yourself however you want, the issue is when what you have done begins to impact on the life chances of someone else.
Some people do escape the poverty trap, but most don't, which is why social mobility is so low in this country. It's why doctors children typically become doctors, it's why private school pupils are disproportionately represented at Oxbridge etc etc . All a massive function of 'inheritence' in one form or another.
How does it work for you then? I asked this to the other poster who had remarkably similar notions to you.
Do you increase inheritance tax
Reduce it
scrap it
Everything goes to the state"was I the other poster ? Imo, progressive tiering feels sensible. Lower nil rate but a lower tax. And another higher rate that is greater than 40pc. If I understand the nil rates correctly one can leave C 0.5m iht free if the house is left to the kids. In my mind some of that can be redistributed without penalising the beneficiaries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
I'm starting to see a pattern with people who start their posts off with "so".
Your first paragraph, I have indicated nowhere that to be the case, that is what you think about things not me.
Same as the second, in fact you have basically ranted a response without taking anytime to read the other posts that go into this a little deeper.
I guess you feel that you have told me, and if that gave you a little moment great, fill your boots
Forgive me, but, and I paraphrase, you believe your children deserve whatever you intend to bequeath them - is that accurate?
My point is that deserve is a funny word and do kids that start with nothing deserve that too? Or are they just unlucky?
I wasn't 'telling' you anything, I was asking you a question about principles.
But why is it always punitive? Why is it always “I don’t have it so you shouldn’t have it”? Why is it always reductive?
Without a shadow of doubt there are people who get dealt a bad hand in life. They are poor and remain poor. There are all manner of reasons for this. Some are environmental (inc education, parents) and some are personal (work ethic and intelligence).
But some people transcend or escape the “poverty trap”. Some people are genuinely self made. Not everyone who is “better off” or “wealthy” or “rich” was born with a silver spoon.
So why shouldn’t they want to leave all their assets (purchased with post tax income and also taxed on purchase) to their kids to give them a better start then they themselves got?
It appears the only reason is because other kids do not get that.
You're missing my point I think. It's not punitive at all. You worked hard, you are entitled to reward yourself however you want, the issue is when what you have done begins to impact on the life chances of someone else.
Some people do escape the poverty trap, but most don't, which is why social mobility is so low in this country. It's why doctors children typically become doctors, it's why private school pupils are disproportionately represented at Oxbridge etc etc . All a massive function of 'inheritence' in one form or another.
How does it work for you then? I asked this to the other poster who had remarkably similar notions to you.
Do you increase inheritance tax
Reduce it
scrap it
Everything goes to the state"I'm not sure I've identified my notions, I've been discussing the principle of 'inheritence' etc. However, if we want a meritocracy then we have to be prepared to provide support and services so that everyone has broadly equal life chances (not outcomes). Resource from that has to come from somewhere. Removing inherited wealth would certainly increase social mobility and would increase resources available to increase life chances. If individual inheritance is so important but the desire for meritocracy remains then general taxation increases would be required. Fundamentally it depends on how committed one is to a meritocratic society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
unfortunatley life aint fair and never will be,my mum scrimped and saved to buy her house, worked two jobs for 15 years to be able to do so, and yea me and my bruv will get half wen my mum passes away and her grandkids will get the other half,as for kids whos parents were feckless or addicts well thats on there parents no one else
Ok, so I'm bigger and stronger than you, I'll take your car keys thanks. I'm allowed because life isn't fair. Happy with that too?
Right, I understand, kids who have done nothing wrong at all (they're kids after all) should have lots of their life chances mapped out for them because of their parents.
Are you going to volunteer to go round the junior schools telling the kids this or should I?
You're trying to compare physically taking something to being gifted something.
At this point you've lost the argument. Its not anywhere close to a comparison.
I'm not even genuinely close to making that comparison at all. I'm pointing out that the 'life isn't fair ' argument can be purposed for all sorts of other things too. "So you post, spouting some nonsense about theft and then claim you weren't comparing
Life isn't fair for most people but that doesn't mean we can go breaking the law and physically removing items from whomever we choose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadia whittome MP says we need "ambition for the future, taxing the rich". How does taxing success relate to ambition for the future?" Could be bait, hoping the Tory government steals the idea. it seems to be the Tory policy norm.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
unfortunatley life aint fair and never will be,my mum scrimped and saved to buy her house, worked two jobs for 15 years to be able to do so, and yea me and my bruv will get half wen my mum passes away and her grandkids will get the other half,as for kids whos parents were feckless or addicts well thats on there parents no one else
Ok, so I'm bigger and stronger than you, I'll take your car keys thanks. I'm allowed because life isn't fair. Happy with that too?
Right, I understand, kids who have done nothing wrong at all (they're kids after all) should have lots of their life chances mapped out for them because of their parents.
Are you going to volunteer to go round the junior schools telling the kids this or should I?
You're trying to compare physically taking something to being gifted something.
At this point you've lost the argument. Its not anywhere close to a comparison.
I'm not even genuinely close to making that comparison at all. I'm pointing out that the 'life isn't fair ' argument can be purposed for all sorts of other things too.
So you post, spouting some nonsense about theft and then claim you weren't comparing
Life isn't fair for most people but that doesn't mean we can go breaking the law and physically removing items from whomever we choose."Again, if that's what you took, knock yourself out. If 'life isn't fair ' is the motto, then what counts as unfair? I'm trying to address the principle behind that slogan. Mike Harding (Folk singer/comic/hill walker) tells a story about a walker told by the landowner that he's trespassing... How is it your land? Well my Father gave it to me. And how did he get it? His father gave it to him Ok, so how did your Granddad yet it? From his father. (It goes on a few generations until) And how did he get it? Oh he fought for it. Ok, take your coat off I'll fight you for it now. Would that fight be fair? Was the ancestors fight fair? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
I'm starting to see a pattern with people who start their posts off with "so".
Your first paragraph, I have indicated nowhere that to be the case, that is what you think about things not me.
Same as the second, in fact you have basically ranted a response without taking anytime to read the other posts that go into this a little deeper.
I guess you feel that you have told me, and if that gave you a little moment great, fill your boots
Forgive me, but, and I paraphrase, you believe your children deserve whatever you intend to bequeath them - is that accurate?
My point is that deserve is a funny word and do kids that start with nothing deserve that too? Or are they just unlucky?
I wasn't 'telling' you anything, I was asking you a question about principles.
But why is it always punitive? Why is it always “I don’t have it so you shouldn’t have it”? Why is it always reductive?
Without a shadow of doubt there are people who get dealt a bad hand in life. They are poor and remain poor. There are all manner of reasons for this. Some are environmental (inc education, parents) and some are personal (work ethic and intelligence).
But some people transcend or escape the “poverty trap”. Some people are genuinely self made. Not everyone who is “better off” or “wealthy” or “rich” was born with a silver spoon.
So why shouldn’t they want to leave all their assets (purchased with post tax income and also taxed on purchase) to their kids to give them a better start then they themselves got?
It appears the only reason is because other kids do not get that.
You're missing my point I think. It's not punitive at all. You worked hard, you are entitled to reward yourself however you want, the issue is when what you have done begins to impact on the life chances of someone else.
Some people do escape the poverty trap, but most don't, which is why social mobility is so low in this country. It's why doctors children typically become doctors, it's why private school pupils are disproportionately represented at Oxbridge etc etc . All a massive function of 'inheritence' in one form or another.
How does it work for you then? I asked this to the other poster who had remarkably similar notions to you.
Do you increase inheritance tax
Reduce it
scrap it
Everything goes to the state
I'm not sure I've identified my notions, I've been discussing the principle of 'inheritence' etc.
However, if we want a meritocracy then we have to be prepared to provide support and services so that everyone has broadly equal life chances (not outcomes). Resource from that has to come from somewhere. Removing inherited wealth would certainly increase social mobility and would increase resources available to increase life chances. If individual inheritance is so important but the desire for meritocracy remains then general taxation increases would be required.
Fundamentally it depends on how committed one is to a meritocratic society."We will never have a meritocratic society, ever. Interviewing for a job role is a perfect and often rolled out example of how we fail in that regard, it is very often who you know not what you know. However an interviewer doesn't need to know any person applying, they will still make personal choices based on their own requirements over the skills of the applicants. Humans have instincts and values, you can't simply switch those off because it is not fair... Social equality for all fails in the conscious thought and the un-conscious in everyone, you can say it doesn't but I do not believe for one moment that there is anyone on this planet who hasn't made a decision to favour one person over another simply through association, and therefore giving an unfair advantage. You want 100% meritocracy? You will need to wait for the day that we are all programmed to obey. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" luck of the draw on location making some houses worth 20-30 times their original value is not earned wealth. That should be considered for tax. It's called capital gains tax doesn't apply to primary residence tho irrc. Maybe that's a different discussion.... " Nor should it EVER! If you buy a house it is so you have a home. If you buy a 2nd, 3rd etc house, it is an investment. Your home should never be taxed (beyond the stamp duty when you bought it). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
unfortunatley life aint fair and never will be,my mum scrimped and saved to buy her house, worked two jobs for 15 years to be able to do so, and yea me and my bruv will get half wen my mum passes away and her grandkids will get the other half,as for kids whos parents were feckless or addicts well thats on there parents no one else
Ok, so I'm bigger and stronger than you, I'll take your car keys thanks. I'm allowed because life isn't fair. Happy with that too?
Right, I understand, kids who have done nothing wrong at all (they're kids after all) should have lots of their life chances mapped out for them because of their parents.
Are you going to volunteer to go round the junior schools telling the kids this or should I?
"you can try take stuff from me dosent meen you will be successful doing that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
unfortunatley life aint fair and never will be,my mum scrimped and saved to buy her house, worked two jobs for 15 years to be able to do so, and yea me and my bruv will get half wen my mum passes away and her grandkids will get the other half,as for kids whos parents were feckless or addicts well thats on there parents no one else
Ok, so I'm bigger and stronger than you, I'll take your car keys thanks. I'm allowed because life isn't fair. Happy with that too?
Right, I understand, kids who have done nothing wrong at all (they're kids after all) should have lots of their life chances mapped out for them because of their parents.
Are you going to volunteer to go round the junior schools telling the kids this or should I?
"why would i go telling other peoples kids anything thats the parents job, my kids are my concern not other peoples kids, if you wana go talk to other peoples kids you crack on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
I'm starting to see a pattern with people who start their posts off with "so".
Your first paragraph, I have indicated nowhere that to be the case, that is what you think about things not me.
Same as the second, in fact you have basically ranted a response without taking anytime to read the other posts that go into this a little deeper.
I guess you feel that you have told me, and if that gave you a little moment great, fill your boots
Forgive me, but, and I paraphrase, you believe your children deserve whatever you intend to bequeath them - is that accurate?
My point is that deserve is a funny word and do kids that start with nothing deserve that too? Or are they just unlucky?
I wasn't 'telling' you anything, I was asking you a question about principles.
But why is it always punitive? Why is it always “I don’t have it so you shouldn’t have it”? Why is it always reductive?
Without a shadow of doubt there are people who get dealt a bad hand in life. They are poor and remain poor. There are all manner of reasons for this. Some are environmental (inc education, parents) and some are personal (work ethic and intelligence).
But some people transcend or escape the “poverty trap”. Some people are genuinely self made. Not everyone who is “better off” or “wealthy” or “rich” was born with a silver spoon.
So why shouldn’t they want to leave all their assets (purchased with post tax income and also taxed on purchase) to their kids to give them a better start then they themselves got?
It appears the only reason is because other kids do not get that.
You're missing my point I think. It's not punitive at all. You worked hard, you are entitled to reward yourself however you want, the issue is when what you have done begins to impact on the life chances of someone else.
Some people do escape the poverty trap, but most don't, which is why social mobility is so low in this country. It's why doctors children typically become doctors, it's why private school pupils are disproportionately represented at Oxbridge etc etc . All a massive function of 'inheritence' in one form or another.
How does it work for you then? I asked this to the other poster who had remarkably similar notions to you.
Do you increase inheritance tax
Reduce it
scrap it
Everything goes to the state
I'm not sure I've identified my notions, I've been discussing the principle of 'inheritence' etc.
However, if we want a meritocracy then we have to be prepared to provide support and services so that everyone has broadly equal life chances (not outcomes). Resource from that has to come from somewhere. Removing inherited wealth would certainly increase social mobility and would increase resources available to increase life chances. If individual inheritance is so important but the desire for meritocracy remains then general taxation increases would be required.
Fundamentally it depends on how committed one is to a meritocratic society.
We will never have a meritocratic society, ever. Interviewing for a job role is a perfect and often rolled out example of how we fail in that regard, it is very often who you know not what you know. However an interviewer doesn't need to know any person applying, they will still make personal choices based on their own requirements over the skills of the applicants.
Humans have instincts and values, you can't simply switch those off because it is not fair...
Social equality for all fails in the conscious thought and the un-conscious in everyone, you can say it doesn't but I do not believe for one moment that there is anyone on this planet who hasn't made a decision to favour one person over another simply through association, and therefore giving an unfair advantage.
You want 100% meritocracy? You will need to wait for the day that we are all programmed to obey. "I need to go back and reply to an earlier post but this caught my attention... The failure of Communism shows that a complete meritocracy cannot and does not work. Why should a brain surgeon earn the same as a plumber? Both are very useful to society and have skills society needs but one has to spend far longer studying and training and, let’s be honest here, be more intelligent than the other. So why reward/recompense them the same? That doesn’t mean going to the other extreme of landed nobility and serfs. It means a fair and balanced society that rewards people commensurate with the skills they provide and encourages entrepreneurialism leading to job and wealth creation. The wealth gap is too large and has been skewed in favour of the super rich. But that doesn’t mean penalise the well off who have worked hard and achieved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
unfortunatley life aint fair and never will be,my mum scrimped and saved to buy her house, worked two jobs for 15 years to be able to do so, and yea me and my bruv will get half wen my mum passes away and her grandkids will get the other half,as for kids whos parents were feckless or addicts well thats on there parents no one else
Ok, so I'm bigger and stronger than you, I'll take your car keys thanks. I'm allowed because life isn't fair. Happy with that too?
Right, I understand, kids who have done nothing wrong at all (they're kids after all) should have lots of their life chances mapped out for them because of their parents.
Are you going to volunteer to go round the junior schools telling the kids this or should I?
you can try take stuff from me dosent meen you will be successful doing that"I think you are missing the point. People typically retort to 'life isn't fair ' when they are ahead of the 'fairness curve' (for want of an expression) if they were behind the curve they would have different notions about the fairness of life don't you think? It's an easy thing to say but a more difficult thing to hear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said waaay up the thread. Our opinions will generally be informed by personal experience. I inherited nothing. I come from modest beginnings. Everything I have has been earned by me. Everything I have has been subject to tax. I would like to pass that to my children. I don’t see why the taxman should get a cut. Same situation for me too
So?
Is that what situation your children will be in when they pass on your earnings to their children?
I mentioned earlier we cant see eye to eye on this.
It saddens me to think anyone would say their children don't deserve inheritance as they've not worked for it.
I need to draw a line under this
So do children with parents who are feckless, or addicts or disabled etc 'deserve' the nothing that they inherit?
Seems quite odd to say to certain kids that some other kids have better life chances than them because of things their parents did, no?
I'm starting to see a pattern with people who start their posts off with "so".
Your first paragraph, I have indicated nowhere that to be the case, that is what you think about things not me.
Same as the second, in fact you have basically ranted a response without taking anytime to read the other posts that go into this a little deeper.
I guess you feel that you have told me, and if that gave you a little moment great, fill your boots
Forgive me, but, and I paraphrase, you believe your children deserve whatever you intend to bequeath them - is that accurate?
My point is that deserve is a funny word and do kids that start with nothing deserve that too? Or are they just unlucky?
I wasn't 'telling' you anything, I was asking you a question about principles.
But why is it always punitive? Why is it always “I don’t have it so you shouldn’t have it”? Why is it always reductive?
Without a shadow of doubt there are people who get dealt a bad hand in life. They are poor and remain poor. There are all manner of reasons for this. Some are environmental (inc education, parents) and some are personal (work ethic and intelligence).
But some people transcend or escape the “poverty trap”. Some people are genuinely self made. Not everyone who is “better off” or “wealthy” or “rich” was born with a silver spoon.
So why shouldn’t they want to leave all their assets (purchased with post tax income and also taxed on purchase) to their kids to give them a better start then they themselves got?
It appears the only reason is because other kids do not get that.
You're missing my point I think. It's not punitive at all. You worked hard, you are entitled to reward yourself however you want, the issue is when what you have done begins to impact on the life chances of someone else.
Some people do escape the poverty trap, but most don't, which is why social mobility is so low in this country. It's why doctors children typically become doctors, it's why private school pupils are disproportionately represented at Oxbridge etc etc . All a massive function of 'inheritence' in one form or another."Again though you talk about how one person’s success is at the expense of someone else? Always a negative stance. I don’t often reveal personal details about myself on here (or any social media) but this will mark the second time this week, to illustrate a point not “show off” and I hope that is clear. My grandparents and parents were very much working class. Tradespeople. I grew up in a council estate. Not a Harry Brown style inner city rough neighbourhood, but a council estate nonetheless. I went to a Comprehensive School (though admittedly passed my 11+ and could have gone to Grammar School, but none of my friends were). I have inherited nothing from my grandparents or parents. My childhood was very modest. Holidays on Isle of Wight camping. The one thing I did have was a supportive and encouraging family and, it turned out, I was pretty smart. I was the first person in my family to ever go to University (and not any old Uni either). I subsequently secured good jobs, enjoyed a good career as an employee and also got involved in some start ups who used my skills and knowledge in return for equity. I have done pretty well in life. Throughout my adult life I have paid all the taxes I am required to pay. I have made a significant financial contribution to UK PLC as a result. I have transcended my working class roots and, I guess if class really is a thing, would likely be called upper middle class now. I would like to pass on my entire estate to my kids tax free. At the very least I would like the primary/family home to be tax free. Why shouldn’t it be? How does me passing my home to my kids tax free penalise anyone else? Absolutely it gives a leg up/cushion to my kids but why shouldn’t it? And again, why would me doing that penalise anyone else? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
