FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Inheritance tax

Inheritance tax

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1433322

The summary from the previous thread:

The summary of why inheritance tax should not be paid at all:

You have earned everything you have ever received through 100% your own effort and those who are not as rich as you just didn't try hard enough. Lazy or stupid or something.

Reducing inheritance tax makes you work harder and increasing inheritance tax makes you lazier. Money is the only motivation.

Your money is still your own after you are dead. It does not become unearned income to the inheritors of your estate.

It's your money and having paid tax on it once should not have to pay any more, ever.

Obviously that money can then be invested by your children without tax and be passed on to their children who can do the same. Tax has been paid once by you and that's quite enough.

This does not, in any way, create an increasing generational wealth gap.

£325,000, £500,000 or £1million are not significant amounts of money to inherit and wouldn't change anyone's life.

Those who do not have parents who they are able to inherit hundreds of thousands of pounds from are just as able to pay off debts or put down a deposit or live mortgage free as someone who does.

If you pass on your home after your death one of your children will definitely want to live in it and it will not be treated as just an asset, especially if there are multiple siblings.

It is cruel to make your children sell anything that belonged to you.

You want to stop companies and rich individuals to put their money in off-shore tax havens but those who think inheritance tax is reasonable do not.

You love your children but those who think inheritance tax is reasonable hate theirs.

I don't think I've missed any of the major points out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

Your OP is totally disingenuous and is not remotely an accurate representation or summary of the discussion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

It's your money and having paid tax on it once should not have to pay any more, ever.

I totally agree with you on this point

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ob198XaMan over a year ago

teleford

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum."

Ah yes good old socialism, everybody should be equal but only as equal as me…. Is several hundred thousand what you might stand to inherit by by any chance…. If a family member won ten million on the lottery the day before their death would you rather the tax man took it all or that you rather inherited that balance so you could distribute it as you saw fit?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I do not understand how it’s acceptable.

For example if a relative dies and has £500k to leave to you.

That £500k they have earnt and saved over a life time and have laid 20% income tax on. So that was £600k and they have lost £100k to tax.

With the £500k inheritance £325k is tax free but the £175k has 40% tax applied. That is £35k

So out of £600k earnt the government takes £135k tax.

That’s 22.5%

I think inheritance tax should be removed.

What ever you spent the £465k on you will have to pay 20% tax on anyway.

Leaving you with £372k

That means that money has had 38% tax applied from when it was earnt, worked for.

No wonder so many people have stopped working and there is so many vacancies for jobs

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

It's your money and having paid tax on it once should not have to pay any more, ever.

I totally agree with you on this point

Except as most of discussion was focused around the family home, the “money” will have been taxed more than once already via stamp duty and VAT on all purchase/moving related costs! The home will also have been purchased via debt (mortgage) with compound interest that has been serviced from post tax income (companies can offset debt repayments against tax but individuals cannot).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

It's your money and having paid tax on it once should not have to pay any more, ever.

I totally agree with you on this point

Oh and to add...what about home improvements such as a new kitchen, bathroom or extension that adds value to the home (ergo the estate)? All the money spent on that will have been double taxed, first via income tax/NI and then via VAT on the kitchen/bathroom/extension (parts and labour).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

It's your money and having paid tax on it once should not have to pay any more, ever.

I totally agree with you on this point

Great point which has been missed by the OP in the summary

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *wisted999Man over a year ago

North Bucks

It's your money and having paid tax on it once should not have to pay any more, ever.

I totally agree with you on this point

And me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

It's your money and having paid tax on it once should not have to pay any more, ever.

I totally agree with you on this point

Great point which has been missed by the OP in the summary

Yep and then my follow on re home improvements.

If we want to talk about contribution to society, then each £1 spent by the homeowner on, for example a kitchen, will contribute 20p directly to exchequer through VAT.

After that the company who install the kitchen will pay their staff from the 80p that generates Employer NIC, Employee NIC, Income Tax. After that, once the company has deducted all other operational costs on top of salaries, the balance also funds their Corporation Tax.

I think it is pretty fair to say the majority of every £1 ends up going to the tax man in the end.

So why shouldn’t the entire cost of buying a home and improving a home (that all impacts on the value of the estate) be deductible before applying IHT?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

I think inheritance tax should be 100%. Do we want a meritocracy or not?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"I think inheritance tax should be 100%. Do we want a meritocracy or not?

Why stop there? How about 100% tax and we all get paid with food and rent vouchers!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

The National Lottery is what it is. A charity which collects and distributes funds to charity through the mechanism of a prize based on a game of chance. The taxation rules are what they are and you view the tax as notionally having been paid already or tax exempt due to its charitable status.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

It's your money and having paid tax on it once should not have to pay any more, ever.

I totally agree with you on this point

Really?

Explain how it is not as stated.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

"I do not understand how it’s acceptable.

For example if a relative dies and has £500k to leave to you.

That £500k they have earnt and saved over a life time and have laid 20% income tax on. So that was £600k and they have lost £100k to tax.

With the £500k inheritance £325k is tax free but the £175k has 40% tax applied. That is £35k

So out of £600k earnt the government takes £135k tax.

That’s 22.5%

I think inheritance tax should be removed.

What ever you spent the £465k on you will have to pay 20% tax on anyway.

Leaving you with £372k

That means that money has had 38% tax applied from when it was earnt, worked for.

No wonder so many people have stopped working and there is so many vacancies for jobs "

I would be wary of making assumed calculation like this national insurance, personal allowance and tax rates have al varied over the decades.

Quite frankly the long term planning has been appalling from consecutive Conservative and Labour governments.

We create the nhs, the didn't raise retirement ages soon enough when ststs appeared that on average you went from dying 6 years after retirement age to about 15.

People didn't pay in enough in the 60s onwards for this lack of foresight inheritance tax sort of helps address this.

On a philosophical side, some one said its the money the (deceased earned) Exactly true. Not the recipient. They didn't earn it. Do they deserve it?

Ultimately you can pose the question what's tbe difference between this and gifting if you didn't charge inheritance tax. It would be a free way of gifting money.

Have a friend you work for ( they gifting you money, you don't ever pay tax or ni) and it opens up a whole world of problems because remember it doesn't have to be a family member you put in your will.

You then jave tbe housing problem. The young can't get om the housing market because of sh!t government policy for 60 years on housing. Thisnis where a lot of inheritance is tied up.

Do you deserve that exorbitant appreciation in value ? You haven't "earned" it. Does the government have the right then to take it away?

It's a complicated matter, the young nownpay around 55% of disposable income on rent. With house prices 5x that of average salaries

40 years ago my.mum bought her first house in a single wage, she had 4 workers for every pensioner.

Now we have 2 workers for every pensioner hence ni going up and up.

I think there's a middle ground on maybe not taxing liquid assets. But investments such as housing where you benefit from poor government policy is correct?

Also trust funds is a whole different matter that really needs looking into. S that's just a farce.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

How would society change if there was zero inheritance tax?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success."

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

The whole “you haven’t earned it” is patchy at best though. We currently accept a spouse can transfer their IHT allowance when they die even though the other spouse didn’t “earn it” but not the children? Same family!

What if the “kids” continued to live in the family home way into their 20s (or even 30s) and contributed to the household income? I remember when I started work and was still living at home paying my Mum “housekeeping”.

I believe the primary family home should not be treated as an asset and should be exempt from estate valuation for IHT (for all the many reasons I have given in this and the other thread).

It should be considered a home not an investable asset.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"How would society change if there was zero inheritance tax?"

If tax loopholes for individuals and businesses were closed (and the tax code simplified to reduce opportunity for exploitation) then more tax overall would be collected and we would not need IHT or the moral discussions that accompany it.

As per other thread Philip Green and Wife spring to mind. Starbucks. Remove the stupid £30k flat payment per year that enables people who clearly not Non-Dom from claiming to be Non-Dom.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

"The whole “you haven’t earned it” is patchy at best though. We currently accept a spouse can transfer their IHT allowance when they die even though the other spouse didn’t “earn it” but not the children? Same family!

I believe the primary family home should not be treated as an asset and should be exempt from estate valuation for IHT (for all the many reasons I have given in this and the other thread).

It should be considered a home not an investable asset."

This then opens up the door for other legal debates which is the problem.

If you're a child paying rent/household income. You're legally obliged to declare it. And thus become a landlord etc. But no parent would ever do that.

If they contributed to the mortgage then they should be on the mortgage.

Sadly homes are considered assets now. Ylu can have a home without needing to own the property.

This would be the same for those in rental accommodations so would you expect to earn part of that student rental house from uni? Of course not.

Like I said it's a complicated matter. Whereby I think the answer lies somewhere in between not taxing liquid cash, but asset values/ value increases.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"How would society change if there was zero inheritance tax?

As per other thread Philip Green and Wife spring to mind. Starbucks. Remove the stupid £30k flat payment per year that enables people who clearly not Non-Dom from claiming to be Non-Dom. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *elle and JamesCouple over a year ago

Hornchurch

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

Jacob Rees Mogg is more successful financially than all NHS Consultants, do you think he embodies these factors you stated more than a consultant by the power of, say 100 given their disparity in wealth?

Good fortune on its own does provide for 'success' though if it is replicated enough times. Born into rich family, private school, make connections, 'subsidised' internship, inherit money, set up business, use connections, business a bit iffy, get investment based on cognisance, family connections set you up with a govt contract etc etc. None of those options are available to a kid growing up on a council estate, nor are they a function of talent, determination and hard work.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

I grew up on a council estate. I have done pretty well. Apparently according to some that is all about luck! Also according to some, my wealth means I am unable to be empathetic and because I want to leave more of my estate tax free to my kids I am somehow defrauding society!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

I believe the primary family home should not be treated as an asset and should be exempt from estate valuation for IHT (for all the many reasons I have given in this and the other thread).

It should be considered a home not an investable asset.

This then opens up the door for other legal debates which is the problem.

If you're a child paying rent/household income. You're legally obliged to declare it. And thus become a landlord etc. But no parent would ever do that.

If they contributed to the mortgage then they should be on the mortgage.

Sadly homes are considered assets now. Ylu can have a home without needing to own the property.

This would be the same for those in rental accommodations so would you expect to earn part of that student rental house from uni? Of course not.

Like I said it's a complicated matter. Whereby I think the answer lies somewhere in between not taxing liquid cash, but asset values/ value increases.

It certainly is complicated. However, grown up kids paying “housekeeping” will argue they are paying for food and share of utilities rather than part of the mortgage.

I stand by my point. The family home should be exempt from IHT or the threshold needs regular uplift to reflect house price inflation and the entire borrowing costs to finance the purchase of the home and any costs for home improvements that increase the value of the home should be deductible when calculating the value of the estate (reasons given in earlier posts).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *elle and JamesCouple over a year ago

Hornchurch

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

I don't deny that, but it's not the point I'm making.

Starting off well can mean finishing well without putting in the effort that others who finish well do.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

I don't deny that, but it's not the point I'm making.

Starting off well can mean finishing well without putting in the effort that others who finish well do.

For sure a silver spoon and family connections help a huge amount. But IHT does not and will not stop that.

On the other thread I made the point that as it stands IHT only really impacts on middle income/middle classes. It does nothing to tackle inequality it just penalises those in the middle who, for the most part, have a family home that has increased in value above the IHT threshold.

The (very) rich can easily avoid IHT. Remarkable easily and legally.

Also what about regional differences? A £325k home in Hull will be totally different to one in London.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *idnight RamblerMan over a year ago

Pershore

IHT is an odious and unfair tax, that forces middle income earners into double taxation. The poor and rich don't pay it (for different reasons).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

You are trying to say an unmeasurable variable of random events is a path to success, Success is not wealth. The example you give is also massively weighted towards the upper ends of the 0.000000001% of the population who can simply avoid IHT.

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *elle and JamesCouple over a year ago

Hornchurch

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

Those aren't random events. I'm not sure if you saw Lee Anderson told twitter about his research assistant who was living well in London on £30k and hence public sector pay rises were unnecessary. She was paid that, yes, but she could afford to live on that salary because she was being subsidised essentially by her parents. Now tell me if you think her employment potential is greater or lesser after working as an MPs assistant?

Do you think that you may be getting close to a bit of a contradiction though? On the one hand you are saying that successful people have worked hard etc, almost one may say, a meritocratic principle, but on the other you are defending inherited wealth, very much not a meritocratic principle ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Not to deviate too much from this

But there are way a d mea s of legally avoiding Inherticane tax as well as one of the other problems care home fees a d governemnts accessing elderly funds

You can't transfer uo to 9% of a property value to a family member( stops gove selling property if they go into care)

You can put property(ies)ina trust paying 20% or 28% capital gains etc therefore not laying the inheritance of 40% ( especially if you have a portforlio)

You can live in a property and declare it as your residence fkr 6 months before sale.

You can put other investments in trusts. Against stopping the 40% but you will pay on gains made but at half the rate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

You are coming in on a extended thread / threads were I the OP has continually stated that children do not deserve any more inheritance than what is allowed as they have not played a part in the accumulation of the estate. He has then gone on to say it is all luck that put us in a position to even have an estate to pass on.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *elle and JamesCouple over a year ago

Hornchurch

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it. "

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

Inheritance tax is immoral and should be abolished altogether.

For what reason?

Every reason you can think of, and a few more besides.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then? "

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *elle and JamesCouple over a year ago

Hornchurch

"Inheritance tax is immoral and should be abolished altogether.

For what reason?

Every reason you can think of, and a few more besides."

Very few things are actually 'immoral', For whatever reasons you think inheritance tax is immoral there are the same number of opposing views.

What we see as im(moral), politically at least is just a function of how we see the world.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *elle and JamesCouple over a year ago

Hornchurch

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject "

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

I think though that if you really believe that as a principle then that must inform your views on inheritance, because that isn't hard work is it? that's attaining something by virtue of someone else's hard work?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

It is about values, I’ve worked hard for what I have and paid all taxes owed to build a supportive environment for my family.

I do not see why after all the work and taxes, income, stamp, NI, stamp, capital etc that I have already paid out need to be taxed again at 40%.

I would like to provide a foundation that will support my loved ones after my death.

There is also an assumption that children do not play a part in the success of the estate, I feel that is so far off that it makes me wonder what type of family relationships some have… my children are the reason I worked hard, and continue to work hard, they have motivated me, supported me and driven me to be the best parent I can be. As was stated in the last thread that children don’t deserve because they have not played a role simply baffles me..

I value my family above strangers

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *elle and JamesCouple over a year ago

Hornchurch

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

It is about values, I’ve worked hard for what I have and paid all taxes owed to build a supportive environment for my family.

I do not see why after all the work and taxes, income, stamp, NI, stamp, capital etc that I have already paid out need to be taxed again at 40%.

I would like to provide a foundation that will support my loved ones after my death.

I value my family above strangers

But didn't you say earlier that inheriting money wasn't as important as working hard, dedication, wisdom etc ? On that basis aren't the values you leave your children the more important foundation than the actual money? But you seem very keen to defend the actual money too.

Again, as a principle, how can you 'deserve'something that you played no part in?

Cambridge Dictionary, Deserve 'to have earned or to be given something because of the way you have behaved or the qualities you have'.

Again, I'm not sure how the principle of 'deserve' fits in with inheritance, the quality of the child in this case is their parents. Say you want to give your kids your fortune certainly, but to say they deserve it seems a stretch of the word, no?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"Not to deviate too much from this

But there are way a d mea s of legally avoiding Inherticane tax as well as one of the other problems care home fees a d governemnts accessing elderly funds

You can't transfer uo to 9% of a property value to a family member( stops gove selling property if they go into care)

You can put property(ies)ina trust paying 20% or 28% capital gains etc therefore not laying the inheritance of 40% ( especially if you have a portforlio)

You can live in a property and declare it as your residence fkr 6 months before sale.

You can put other investments in trusts. Against stopping the 40% but you will pay on gains made but at half the rate.

You can also set up an offshore trust and transfer all assets into that naming children as beneficiaries. Or set up a company registered in an offshore tax haven such as Jersey and have your assets (home) owned by the company and appoint your children as Directors/Shareholders when they turn 18.

All perfectly legal loopholes to avoid tax.

Or you could raise IHT threshold, enable all costs involved in buying and improving the property to be offset against the threshold OR simply exempt the primary family home from IHT altogether AND THEN close the above loopholes (which are only exploited by the very wealthy).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

It is about values, I’ve worked hard for what I have and paid all taxes owed to build a supportive environment for my family.

I do not see why after all the work and taxes, income, stamp, NI, stamp, capital etc that I have already paid out need to be taxed again at 40%.

I would like to provide a foundation that will support my loved ones after my death.

I value my family above strangers

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

It is about values, I’ve worked hard for what I have and paid all taxes owed to build a supportive environment for my family.

I do not see why after all the work and taxes, income, stamp, NI, stamp, capital etc that I have already paid out need to be taxed again at 40%.

I would like to provide a foundation that will support my loved ones after my death.

I value my family above strangers

Again, as a principle, how can you 'deserve'something that you played no part in?

Cambridge Dictionary, Deserve 'to have earned or to be given something because of the way you have behaved or the qualities you have'.

Sorry to jump in but that just feels like you are spoiling for a semantics fight.

Parents want to leave as much of their estate as possible to their kids = shock horror how dare they! What about all the people who have nothing to leave to their kids? They can’t so we should penalise you because you can!

The argument made by the OP is that it is detrimental to society to remove IHT or even change the threshold. I disagree. The estate value was built from income that has already been taxed in multiple ways. That tax has contributed to society. IHT should not be needed. Only the middle income/middle classes are impacted resulting in a two tier system of poor and rich as nobody can claw their way up. So much for a meritocracy! May as well return to feudalism!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

A successful combination of:

Being born to rich parents?

Not being born with a physical or mental disability to overcome?

Not being hit by a bus?

Being taught by a teacher who inspired you?

Genuinely great decision-making, talent and hard work to achieve those outcomes...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

A successful combination of:

Being born to rich parents?

Not being born with a physical or mental disability to overcome?

Not being hit by a bus?

Being taught by a teacher who inspired you?

Genuinely great decision-making, talent and hard work to achieve those outcomes..."

We should pay IHT because we have not been hit by a bus?

Or because we don’t have a disability?

Thise are extremely weak arguments! Actually they are a non-argument! You can do better than that surely?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"I do not understand how it’s acceptable.

For example if a relative dies and has £500k to leave to you.

That £500k they have earnt and saved over a life time and have laid 20% income tax on. So that was £600k and they have lost £100k to tax.

With the £500k inheritance £325k is tax free but the £175k has 40% tax applied. That is £35k

So out of £600k earnt the government takes £135k tax.

That’s 22.5%

I think inheritance tax should be removed.

What ever you spent the £465k on you will have to pay 20% tax on anyway.

Leaving you with £372k

That means that money has had 38% tax applied from when it was earnt, worked for.

No wonder so many people have stopped working and there is so many vacancies for jobs "

So that £325k, £500k, £1million is not income to the beneficiaries?

Is this not income to the beneficiary?

They did not pay tax on it, did they? Why are a dead persons tax affairs relevant to the income of someone else?

If you earn a salary you pay income tax and then VAT. How is this different?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"I do not understand how it’s acceptable.

For example if a relative dies and has £500k to leave to you.

That £500k they have earnt and saved over a life time and have laid 20% income tax on. So that was £600k and they have lost £100k to tax.

With the £500k inheritance £325k is tax free but the £175k has 40% tax applied. That is £35k

So out of £600k earnt the government takes £135k tax.

That’s 22.5%

I think inheritance tax should be removed.

What ever you spent the £465k on you will have to pay 20% tax on anyway.

Leaving you with £372k

That means that money has had 38% tax applied from when it was earnt, worked for.

No wonder so many people have stopped working and there is so many vacancies for jobs

So that £325k, £500k, £1million is not income to the beneficiaries?

Is this not income to the beneficiary?

They did not pay tax on it, did they? Why are a dead persons tax affairs relevant to the income of someone else?

If you earn a salary you pay income tax and then VAT. How is this different?"

Why can you transfer your IHT threshold to your spouse? They didn’t earn it either?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *elle and JamesCouple over a year ago

Hornchurch

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

It is about values, I’ve worked hard for what I have and paid all taxes owed to build a supportive environment for my family.

I do not see why after all the work and taxes, income, stamp, NI, stamp, capital etc that I have already paid out need to be taxed again at 40%.

I would like to provide a foundation that will support my loved ones after my death.

I value my family above strangers

Again, as a principle, how can you 'deserve'something that you played no part in?

Cambridge Dictionary, Deserve 'to have earned or to be given something because of the way you have behaved or the qualities you have'.

Sorry to jump in but that just feels like you are spoiling for a semantics fight.

I think you may be missing the point a little, leave whatever you want if that's what you want to do, but it's not an appropriate use of the word deserve. Because if the child inheriting a million pounds deserves that million pounds, does the child of the chaotic parents deserve that?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

I believe the primary family home should not be treated as an asset and should be exempt from estate valuation for IHT (for all the many reasons I have given in this and the other thread).

It should be considered a home not an investable asset."

Like it or not the status of people who have have committed to a legally binding relationship is recognised as important and requiring some benefits and protection recognising the commitment made.

It is the home that the spouse resides in and that is its primary purpose and value.

However, once it stops being a primary home and it is an asset and just a package of money.

This is particularly evident if there is more than one beneficiary living in geographically distinct locations.

Contributing to housekeeping does not represent ownership.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"How would society change if there was zero inheritance tax?

As per other thread Philip Green and Wife spring to mind. Starbucks. Remove the stupid £30k flat payment per year that enables people who clearly not Non-Dom from claiming to be Non-Dom. "

Why does using inheritance tax in the same way as any other form of progressive taxation preclude closing tax loopholes for the wealthy or corporations?

Who has suggested that shouldn't happen?

The majority of the population would be better off unless you choose to believe that somehow that would lead to lower productivity because it reduces how hard you work and your motivation to make money?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it. "

No. I have not started at any point that it is all lick that put you in any situation. That's what you chose to read because it is easier to argue against.

I said that it is not all down to any individuals decisions and efforts alone.

It certainly is 100% lick that you are born to a family that can give you several hundred pounds for doing nothing other than existing.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"Inheritance tax is immoral and should be abolished altogether.

For what reason?

Every reason you can think of, and a few more besides."

Do please name one moral principle that it breaks?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *mateur100Man over a year ago

nr faversham

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

No. I have not started at any point that it is all lick that put you in any situation. That's what you chose to read because it is easier to argue against.

I said that it is not all down to any individuals decisions and efforts alone.

It certainly is 100% lick that you are born to a family that can give you several hundred pounds for doing nothing other than existing."

Get out the wrong side of the bed this morning did we?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

It is about values, I’ve worked hard for what I have and paid all taxes owed to build a supportive environment for my family.

I do not see why after all the work and taxes, income, stamp, NI, stamp, capital etc that I have already paid out need to be taxed again at 40%.

I would like to provide a foundation that will support my loved ones after my death.

I value my family above strangers

Again, as a principle, how can you 'deserve'something that you played no part in?

Cambridge Dictionary, Deserve 'to have earned or to be given something because of the way you have behaved or the qualities you have'.

Sorry to jump in but that just feels like you are spoiling for a semantics fight.

Nope as I said it feels like you are wanting a semantics fight with NotMe. Nobody in their right mind would claim anyone is MORE deserving than anyone else. Neither would they claim anyone is LESS deserving. But the thrust of the argument seems to be “they don’t get anything so you should get less” and I ask why should that be the case?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

I don't deny that, but it's not the point I'm making.

Starting off well can mean finishing well without putting in the effort that others who finish well do.

For sure a silver spoon and family connections help a huge amount. But IHT does not and will not stop that.

The (very) rich can easily avoid IHT. Remarkable easily and legally.

Also what about regional differences? A £325k home in Hull will be totally different to one in London."

So close the loopholes for the wealthy.

Why should those on PAYE pay progressive income tax when the self-employed do not?

What if the parents live in London and the children live on Wigan?

It is an asset with a value. It may well be important to the original owner, but they are now dead.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

A successful combination of:

Being born to rich parents?

Not being born with a physical or mental disability to overcome?

Not being hit by a bus?

Being taught by a teacher who inspired you?

Genuinely great decision-making, talent and hard work to achieve those outcomes...

We should pay IHT because we have not been hit by a bus?

Or because we don’t have a disability?

Thise are extremely weak arguments! Actually they are a non-argument! You can do better than that surely?"

No. It is the basic argument around a progressive tax system.

The rich pay more to help those who have not achieved the same level of financial security through a combination of luck and judgement.

Why should a large sum of capital being given to any individual not be treated on a different basis?

There is a different aspect of luck which is 100% the good fortune to be born to a family that has those assets to give you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"How would society change if there was zero inheritance tax?

As per other thread Philip Green and Wife spring to mind. Starbucks. Remove the stupid £30k flat payment per year that enables people who clearly not Non-Dom from claiming to be Non-Dom.

Why does using inheritance tax in the same way as any other form of progressive taxation preclude closing tax loopholes for the wealthy or corporations?

Who has suggested that shouldn't happen?

As you well know I am saying IHT should either be abolished, or the threshold increased and/or all associated costs with buying and improving the property be offset against threshold. In that way it ceases to be as punitive on middle income/middle classes. Any cost to the exchequer would be more than covered by closing the loopholes I have listed.

Otherwise it ends up only impacting on middle income/classes as poor not touched and rich can avoid easily and legally.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

It is about values, I’ve worked hard for what I have and paid all taxes owed to build a supportive environment for my family.

I do not see why after all the work and taxes, income, stamp, NI, stamp, capital etc that I have already paid out need to be taxed again at 40%.

I would like to provide a foundation that will support my loved ones after my death.

I value my family above strangers

Again, as a principle, how can you 'deserve'something that you played no part in?

Cambridge Dictionary, Deserve 'to have earned or to be given something because of the way you have behaved or the qualities you have'.

Sorry to jump in but that just feels like you are spoiling for a semantics fight.

Do you deserve something that you have not earned yourself?

What makes it yours if you haven't earned it?

Yet here you are receiving £325,000. Up to £1 million pounds for a property passing to you through two parents. 80% upto £2 million.

None of which you have done nothing to obtain.

What's to be upset about?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"How would society change if there was zero inheritance tax?

As per other thread Philip Green and Wife spring to mind. Starbucks. Remove the stupid £30k flat payment per year that enables people who clearly not Non-Dom from claiming to be Non-Dom.

Why does using inheritance tax in the same way as any other form of progressive taxation preclude closing tax loopholes for the wealthy or corporations?

Who has suggested that shouldn't happen?

Otherwise it ends up only impacting on middle income/classes as poor not touched and rich can avoid easily and legally."

So is PAYE.

Should that be abolished?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iltsguy200Man over a year ago

Warminster

Instead of fixating on IHT why not just reform the whole tax system ??

The UK Tax code has trebled in length since 1997, it’s currently 17,000 pages long, mainly under the direction of one Mr G Brown and others since.

The Hong Kong Tax code, widely held by tax lawyers to be the most admirably efficient in the world, is 276 pages long.

Taxes collected in Hong Kong can be generally classified as:

Direct tax – including Salaries Tax, Property Tax and Profits Tax; the guiding statue is Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap 112);

Indirect tax – including Stamps Duty, Betting Duty, Estate Duty (abolished on 11 February 2006) and others.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *elle and JamesCouple over a year ago

Hornchurch

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

It is about values, I’ve worked hard for what I have and paid all taxes owed to build a supportive environment for my family.

I do not see why after all the work and taxes, income, stamp, NI, stamp, capital etc that I have already paid out need to be taxed again at 40%.

I would like to provide a foundation that will support my loved ones after my death.

I value my family above strangers

Again, as a principle, how can you 'deserve'something that you played no part in?

Cambridge Dictionary, Deserve 'to have earned or to be given something because of the way you have behaved or the qualities you have'.

Sorry to jump in but that just feels like you are spoiling for a semantics fight.

Not at all. If the rich child doesn't deserve their million pound inheritance and the child of the drug addict doesn't deserve to be born an addict then good, we can throw 'deserve' out of the window as a reason for these two identical (as new borns are) children starting from polar opposites.

Now what are we going to do to make sure that these two children have the same chance and opportunity to become Prime Minister?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

I don't deny that, but it's not the point I'm making.

Starting off well can mean finishing well without putting in the effort that others who finish well do.

For sure a silver spoon and family connections help a huge amount. But IHT does not and will not stop that.

The (very) rich can easily avoid IHT. Remarkable easily and legally.

Also what about regional differences? A £325k home in Hull will be totally different to one in London.

So close the loopholes for the wealthy.

Why should those on PAYE pay progressive income tax when the self-employed do not?

What if the parents live in London and the children live on Wigan?

It is an asset with a value. It may well be important to the original owner, but they are now dead."

PAYE vs Self Employed is a whole other topic. Why not start a thread on that? If we start discussing that here it will take us down sone deep rabbit holes!

I see things differently to you in this IHT subject clearly. I do not see as clear a disaggregation between parents and children. I want to leave as much of my estate as possible to my children. I feel no guilt about that as I am confident I have made a very significant contribution to society. I want my children to have a better start in life than I had. To avoid “silver spoon syndrome” it is up to me as a parent to instil the right ethics and morality into my kids.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

It is about values, I’ve worked hard for what I have and paid all taxes owed to build a supportive environment for my family.

I do not see why after all the work and taxes, income, stamp, NI, stamp, capital etc that I have already paid out need to be taxed again at 40%.

I would like to provide a foundation that will support my loved ones after my death.

I value my family above strangers

Again, as a principle, how can you 'deserve'something that you played no part in?

Cambridge Dictionary, Deserve 'to have earned or to be given something because of the way you have behaved or the qualities you have'.

Sorry to jump in but that just feels like you are spoiling for a semantics fight.

Now what are we going to do to make sure that these two children have the same chance and opportunity to become Prime Minister?

That is a HUGE question and warrants its own thread (just as PAYE vs Self Employed does).

I do not see how IHT impacts on your question re two kids and road to PM?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"Instead of fixating on IHT why not just reform the whole tax system ??

The UK Tax code has trebled in length since 1997, it’s currently 17,000 pages long, mainly under the direction of one Mr G Brown and others since.

The Hong Kong Tax code, widely held by tax lawyers to be the most admirably efficient in the world, is 276 pages long.

Taxes collected in Hong Kong can be generally classified as:

Direct tax – including Salaries Tax, Property Tax and Profits Tax; the guiding statue is Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap 112);

Indirect tax – including Stamps Duty, Betting Duty, Estate Duty (abolished on 11 February 2006) and others.

There is certainly a very good case in for this which I wouldn't fully support.

This just happens to be an ongoing discussion.

It does help to define some of the principles of what a "fair" tax system would be based on though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

I don't deny that, but it's not the point I'm making.

Starting off well can mean finishing well without putting in the effort that others who finish well do.

For sure a silver spoon and family connections help a huge amount. But IHT does not and will not stop that.

The (very) rich can easily avoid IHT. Remarkable easily and legally.

Also what about regional differences? A £325k home in Hull will be totally different to one in London.

So close the loopholes for the wealthy.

Why should those on PAYE pay progressive income tax when the self-employed do not?

What if the parents live in London and the children live on Wigan?

It is an asset with a value. It may well be important to the original owner, but they are now dead.

PAYE vs Self Employed is a whole other topic. Why not start a thread on that? If we start discussing that here it will take us down sone deep rabbit holes!

No, the point you raised was because one set of tax rules is not functioning correctly for one group (the wealthiest avoid it) we should not apply it to those who do have to pay it (those on middle incomes).

The same argument stands for the self-employed and those on PAYE without going into any detail.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

It is about values, I’ve worked hard for what I have and paid all taxes owed to build a supportive environment for my family.

I do not see why after all the work and taxes, income, stamp, NI, stamp, capital etc that I have already paid out need to be taxed again at 40%.

I would like to provide a foundation that will support my loved ones after my death.

I value my family above strangers

Again, as a principle, how can you 'deserve'something that you played no part in?

Cambridge Dictionary, Deserve 'to have earned or to be given something because of the way you have behaved or the qualities you have'.

Sorry to jump in but that just feels like you are spoiling for a semantics fight.

Now what are we going to do to make sure that these two children have the same chance and opportunity to become Prime Minister?

Let's put the word "deserve" into context of this thread.

I have mentioned more than once that it was not me that used the word "deserved" It was EasyUK, who first used the phrase "they do not deserve".

That is a blanket ambiguous statement that has no merit, because he doesn't know of any circumstance other than his own.

He has used luck too, which again is nonsense, luck is not a measure.

The only discussion point is the unfairness of IHT on the middle who suffer the most loss in taxes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *elle and JamesCouple over a year ago

Hornchurch

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

It is about values, I’ve worked hard for what I have and paid all taxes owed to build a supportive environment for my family.

I do not see why after all the work and taxes, income, stamp, NI, stamp, capital etc that I have already paid out need to be taxed again at 40%.

I would like to provide a foundation that will support my loved ones after my death.

I value my family above strangers

Again, as a principle, how can you 'deserve'something that you played no part in?

Cambridge Dictionary, Deserve 'to have earned or to be given something because of the way you have behaved or the qualities you have'.

Sorry to jump in but that just feels like you are spoiling for a semantics fight.

Now what are we going to do to make sure that these two children have the same chance and opportunity to become Prime Minister?

That is a HUGE question and warrants its own thread (just as PAYE vs Self Employed does).

I do not see how IHT impacts on your question re two kids and road to PM? "

Because we both seem to accept that children are born with huge variance of circumstances. I believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity to become PM (or a doctor or circus clown etc). However, the child that inherits the wealth is at a greater advantage in achieving that dream, they are more likely to go to private school, private schools have a disproportionate number of Oxbridge students, Oxbridge is over-represented in Cabinet posts etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

It is about values, I’ve worked hard for what I have and paid all taxes owed to build a supportive environment for my family.

I do not see why after all the work and taxes, income, stamp, NI, stamp, capital etc that I have already paid out need to be taxed again at 40%.

I would like to provide a foundation that will support my loved ones after my death.

I value my family above strangers

Again, as a principle, how can you 'deserve'something that you played no part in?

Cambridge Dictionary, Deserve 'to have earned or to be given something because of the way you have behaved or the qualities you have'.

Sorry to jump in but that just feels like you are spoiling for a semantics fight.

Now what are we going to do to make sure that these two children have the same chance and opportunity to become Prime Minister?

That is a HUGE question and warrants its own thread (just as PAYE vs Self Employed does).

I do not see how IHT impacts on your question re two kids and road to PM?

what's your answer that will give every child the same chance?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *elle and JamesCouple over a year ago

Hornchurch

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

It is about values, I’ve worked hard for what I have and paid all taxes owed to build a supportive environment for my family.

I do not see why after all the work and taxes, income, stamp, NI, stamp, capital etc that I have already paid out need to be taxed again at 40%.

I would like to provide a foundation that will support my loved ones after my death.

I value my family above strangers

Again, as a principle, how can you 'deserve'something that you played no part in?

Cambridge Dictionary, Deserve 'to have earned or to be given something because of the way you have behaved or the qualities you have'.

Sorry to jump in but that just feels like you are spoiling for a semantics fight.

Now what are we going to do to make sure that these two children have the same chance and opportunity to become Prime Minister?

That is a HUGE question and warrants its own thread (just as PAYE vs Self Employed does).

I do not see how IHT impacts on your question re two kids and road to PM?

what's your answer that will give every child the same chance? "

Fund nursery places so kids start off learning very early, resource schools fully so that there is no material difference between state and private schools, make university entrance proportional to the A level population, provide full grants that are means tested, move lots of govt functions out of London, establish blind applications for jobs (why does your employer need to know your school, grades yes, location, not really).

It's not everything but over a period of time it would begin to have an impact in increasing social mobility.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ove2pleaseseukMan over a year ago

Hastings

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

It is about values, I’ve worked hard for what I have and paid all taxes owed to build a supportive environment for my family.

I do not see why after all the work and taxes, income, stamp, NI, stamp, capital etc that I have already paid out need to be taxed again at 40%.

I would like to provide a foundation that will support my loved ones after my death.

I value my family above strangers

Again, as a principle, how can you 'deserve'something that you played no part in?

Cambridge Dictionary, Deserve 'to have earned or to be given something because of the way you have behaved or the qualities you have'.

Sorry to jump in but that just feels like you are spoiling for a semantics fight.

Now what are we going to do to make sure that these two children have the same chance and opportunity to become Prime Minister?

That is a HUGE question and warrants its own thread (just as PAYE vs Self Employed does).

I do not see how IHT impacts on your question re two kids and road to PM?

And you realy belive that that is just down to IHT

Not that mum and dad never worked kids skip school as there is no point as all they want is to smoke and get benifit. But changing IHT will help this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

It is about values, I’ve worked hard for what I have and paid all taxes owed to build a supportive environment for my family.

I do not see why after all the work and taxes, income, stamp, NI, stamp, capital etc that I have already paid out need to be taxed again at 40%.

I would like to provide a foundation that will support my loved ones after my death.

I value my family above strangers

Again, as a principle, how can you 'deserve'something that you played no part in?

Cambridge Dictionary, Deserve 'to have earned or to be given something because of the way you have behaved or the qualities you have'.

Sorry to jump in but that just feels like you are spoiling for a semantics fight.

Now what are we going to do to make sure that these two children have the same chance and opportunity to become Prime Minister?

That is a HUGE question and warrants its own thread (just as PAYE vs Self Employed does).

I do not see how IHT impacts on your question re two kids and road to PM?

I hear what you are saying but you are using an extreme to try and illustrate something that very much impacts on the middle ground. As established, IHT does not really impact on the very wealthy who are the type you are referring to (private schools).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

It is about values, I’ve worked hard for what I have and paid all taxes owed to build a supportive environment for my family.

I do not see why after all the work and taxes, income, stamp, NI, stamp, capital etc that I have already paid out need to be taxed again at 40%.

I would like to provide a foundation that will support my loved ones after my death.

I value my family above strangers

Again, as a principle, how can you 'deserve'something that you played no part in?

Cambridge Dictionary, Deserve 'to have earned or to be given something because of the way you have behaved or the qualities you have'.

Sorry to jump in but that just feels like you are spoiling for a semantics fight.

Now what are we going to do to make sure that these two children have the same chance and opportunity to become Prime Minister?

That is a HUGE question and warrants its own thread (just as PAYE vs Self Employed does).

I do not see how IHT impacts on your question re two kids and road to PM?

I have a different take on this.

They would be more able to own their own home without having to save as much from their income.

A mortgage would be unnecessary or paid of faster.

The money that would be used for this from income could be invested.

This provides more psychological stability than the rental sector and allows for an investment in assets that can be passed to the next generation.

This effect is cumulative from one generation to the next.

Even if all of the beneficiary's other conditions were identical they would receive an unearned advantage not dependent on their own hard work, planning or skill.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

It has been mentioned on these threads many times that it is the people in the middle who are paying the most in IHT, that is not very lucky is it.

No I'm not. You said, I think, to paraphrase, 'luck isn't the only thing, people born lucky have to work hard to stay lucky ' I was illustrating that it isn't necessarily true.

My clear view is no it isn't simply luck and that in a nutshell is it.

Excellent, so you do support meritocracy then?

I have been down this path once before with you as I remember…..

it seems to be your specialist subject

Not really a path at all, just a pretty simple position on principles. You believe, I think, that hard work pays (paraphrase)? Good, so do I.

It is about values, I’ve worked hard for what I have and paid all taxes owed to build a supportive environment for my family.

I do not see why after all the work and taxes, income, stamp, NI, stamp, capital etc that I have already paid out need to be taxed again at 40%.

I would like to provide a foundation that will support my loved ones after my death.

I value my family above strangers

Again, as a principle, how can you 'deserve'something that you played no part in?

Cambridge Dictionary, Deserve 'to have earned or to be given something because of the way you have behaved or the qualities you have'.

Sorry to jump in but that just feels like you are spoiling for a semantics fight.

Now what are we going to do to make sure that these two children have the same chance and opportunity to become Prime Minister?

That is a HUGE question and warrants its own thread (just as PAYE vs Self Employed does).

I do not see how IHT impacts on your question re two kids and road to PM?

what's your answer that will give every child the same chance? "

Would narrowing the differences be a good thing to strive for?

Narrowing, not eliminating.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ove2pleaseseukMan over a year ago

Hastings

"My "allegedly socialist" principles would accept several hundred thousand pounds of inheritance tax free, perhaps £500,000 for a family property as acceptable despite how it scares society.

£1 million seems excessive as does £2 million at 20% especially as the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum.

You can think what you wish.Why would I share my financial circumstances with you?

Either a progressive income tax system is acceptable or it is not.

I'm sure you can explain why it is not and why the recipient of money should not pay tax on their winnings.

I would have no problem with it being taxed, but it would seem like an odd thing to do.

It does exactly demonstrate the random allocation of good fortune which has been claimed does not figure in anybody's success.

Ah, falling back to "luck" but carefully not saying it....

Luck / good fortune on its own is not enough to achieve longterm success it is a combination of factors such as good decision making, hard work, talent and importantly determination.

All of that comes together to create successful outcomes, or as you call it "luck".

I don't deny that, but it's not the point I'm making.

Starting off well can mean finishing well without putting in the effort that others who finish well do.

For sure a silver spoon and family connections help a huge amount. But IHT does not and will not stop that.

The (very) rich can easily avoid IHT. Remarkable easily and legally.

Also what about regional differences? A £325k home in Hull will be totally different to one in London.

So close the loopholes for the wealthy.

Why should those on PAYE pay progressive income tax when the self-employed do not?

What if the parents live in London and the children live on Wigan?

It is an asset with a value. It may well be important to the original owner, but they are now dead.

PAYE vs Self Employed is a whole other topic. Why not start a thread on that? If we start discussing that here it will take us down sone deep rabbit holes!

The same argument stands for the self-employed and those on PAYE without going into any detail."

So Lady Mountain lives in a 55 bed country house " Brordlands " it sits in 500 acres so when she dies dose this home go to the state.

And what about Buckingham Palace the King dies and its now state owed as with all big family homes its given to the kids out live them by 7 years it all good.

I would guess none of the royal family have ever earned a penny by your definition.

The top 1 or 2 % are almost exempt.