The Budget

MumOf2

MacMickster wrote: »

How old do you expect your children to be when they inherit your home?

Given that the government needs to raise additional taxes in order to eliminate the budget deficit and (according to Boy George) run a surplus in future, are you happy for your children to have to pay much higher taxes on their income until they receive that inheritance from you?

Of course this may mean that even with endeavour and sacrifice they are unable to afford to put the kind of roof over the heads of your grandchildren that you provided for them.

All our children have taken every opportunity to benefit from their education and professional qualifications so they can stand on their own two feet, even in this rapidly changing economy. We also still make personal sacrifices to pass on as much as we can each year without incurring tax liabilities. They certainly won't be hanging out for their eventual inheritance!


And neither of us has inherited yet - our parents are in their late 80s and early 90s, but hopefully we won't inherit for many many years yet. They live independently in their own homes financed by hard work and graft and sacrifice - the state has benefited hugely from that hard work and graft and sacrifice all through their lives, and I just can't see why it should continue to benefit after their death.


It should be called a shroud tax. Or a corpse tax. It's just sanitising it by calling it an inheritance tax.

Rinoa

The govt. receives around £4Bn from IHT. It's a paltry sum and could easily be raised by other means.

mwpt

Rinoa wrote: »

The govt. receives around £4Bn from IHT. It's a paltry sum and could easily be raised by other means.

So, it's a fantastic vote winner to lower it, without having a huge economic impact.

But still, it's a better tax than most.

Generali

I'd rather pay my taxes after I'm dead than when I'm alive so I'm all in favour of IHT.

Aus doesn't have any 'death duties', as they are known here, at all. Politically it would be very hard to bring them in.

Blue22

MumOf2 wrote: »

our parents are in their late 80s and early 90s, but hopefully we won't inherit for many many years yet. They live independently in their own homes financed by hard work and graft and sacrifice - the state has benefited hugely from that hard work and graft and sacrifice all through their lives

Are their independent lives entirely financed by their 'hard work and graft' or have they each been receiving a state pension for almost 30 years? How often do they use our health service and bus passes? Who pays for their TV licence? Do they use any care services? Who educated their Children and Grandchildren? etc etc

I'm sure you will reply that they are very low users of all those things, as everyone does, but the average person in their 80s/90s will have taken out far more than they have put in. Surely to ask for a little back when they no longer need it isn't an unreasonable thing to do?

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

I'd rather pay my taxes after I'm dead than when I'm alive so I'm all in favour of IHT.

Aus doesn't have any 'death duties', as they are known here, at all. Politically it would be very hard to bring them in.

I don't think that we should have to pay any taxes, I think the Germans should pay our taxes, so that we can enjoy a nice and easy early retirement. But the Germans don't want to work later in life to support other nations, they are so lazy and selfish.

Back on subject, we don't have any children, so our benefactors will most likely be the Dog's Trust, Last chance rescue centre and any surviving friends. So I don't really care about IHT, I have no stake in the inheritance game. CGT is the chip on my shoulder, so lets reduce CGT and increase IHT (just like everyone else, I'm all for someone else paying the tax, rather than me).

chucknorris

Blue22 wrote: »

Are their independent lives entirely financed by their 'hard work and graft' or have they each been receiving a state pension for almost 30 years? How often do they use our health service and bus passes? Who pays for their TV licence? Do they use any care services? Who educated their Children and Grandchildren? etc etc

I'm sure you will reply that they are very low users of all those things, as everyone does, but the average person in their 80s/90s will have taken out far more than they have put in. Surely to ask for a little back when they no longer need it isn't an unreasonable thing to do?

First of all, let me say that I don't really care about IHT. But I felt compelled to say that the average person is very unlikely to pay much (if any) IHT (or rather have it deducted from their estate). It is a tax mainly on the better off, who will have probably taken out less (net) than the average person.

EDIT: After saying that, I don't really care how much they tax my estate when I die, most of it will go to charity anyway, so it won't be taxed (unless they change the rules).

wotsthat

I'm torn on IHT.

The new proposals provide an incentive for older people to live in unsuitably large houses so they can save a bit of tax to pass on to their kids who will be approaching dotage themselves.

I'd be more than happy for my entire estate to be taxed at say, 50%, if it meant I could pay lower taxes now. I'd be more generous in life as there's less incentive to hoard cash to pass on to my heirs who I'd really hope wouldn't need it anyway.

On the other hand paying IHT seems to be reasonably easy to avoid if you're poor or rich and I don't really see why poor or rich dead people should be immune to making a post mortem contribution.

Generali

Blue22 wrote: »

The average person in their 80s/90s will have taken out far more than they have put in.

That seems highly unlikely. As the Government has spent more than taxation for generations, excepting a short-ish period after WW2 when she repaid some of her debts, the average person will have paid in far less than they have taken out.

On top of that, these 80s/90s people will presumably have been retired for 20+ years in his case and in her case probably only worked briefly in her teens and twenties and then maybe got some further work once the kids had left home, likely to be low paid and menial due to a lack of education for the average woman in the 1930-40 period when she would have been at school.

So they've been retired longer than average, are likely to be in poor health which is expensive and the Government has run up huge debts in their lifetime.

I'd say it's staggeringly unlikely that the average person in their 80s/90s has paid in more than they've taken out.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
I'd say it's staggeringly unlikely that the average person in their 80s/90s has paid in more than they've taken out.

To be fair I think that was Blue22 was saying, just in a different form.