inheritance tax annoucement

sloughflint

margaretclare wrote: »

Well, you don't have to read any of my posts either!

Margaret

Hello again Margaret. I didn't see your post when I edited mine.
Now I've got a bit more time, I would like to apologise sincerely for the rudeness of my post above. The second part of post 27 just made me see red and I reacted when I should have waited and commented later.

Rudeness aside, the sentiment of my post still stands. Please have a think about what I put. Your response above suggests that you've dismissed the content.

The topic of IHT is very much of interest to me so I am reading a lot on it. You have frequently posted on the subject and through repetition, it is very much clear what your strong views are.Of course you are entitled to your opinions. I agree with many of them.
I still wonder ( not that it is any of my business) why you are so active in threads that aren't relevant to you in view of your circumstances and views. The majority of people contributing to these threads all over the place by default probably don't and won't ever share your views. You are unlikely to change their opinion.Why persist in repeating yourself?

I know the world is made of allsorts and if I may make an observation, there have been several places where I have seen you post making assumptions that the poster has unsavoury motives. This can be so hurtful to the people looking for advice as was the case here with chesky. By all means go for the jugular when it is obvious but please exercise caution.

Once again, I am sorry for being rude. I may as well leave the post as you've seen it.

EdInvestor

sloughflint wrote: »

The topic of IHT is very much of interest to me so I am reading a lot on it....I still wonder ( not that it is any of my business) why you are so active in threads that aren't relevant to you in view of your circumstances and views...

Not relevant? I don't think so. That would suggest that debate and discussion is not wanted on these important issues.

The majority of people contributing to these threads all over the place by default probably don't and won't ever share your views.

How do you know that? That's not my impression.There have been various polls indicating that the public is very split on the subject of inheritance tax - significant numbers apparently believe it should be *increased*, not decreased ( those would be the ones worth less than 600k one assumes, and they are in the majority by a long shot, though luckily for the better off, they probably don;t live in labour marginals .)

... unsavoury motives....

We have a lot of people who come on here seeking tips on avoiding paying taxes and committing what boils down to benefit fraud.Margaret doesn't need to apologise for pointing out that it is the taxpayer - you and me - not some amorphous Government or "state" that would end up paying for this so that someone else can get an inheritance .

She asks the question 'Is it fair'? Many agree with her (inclduding me) that it is not. On the other hand it's nor realised that some reforms are required.The way forward is to disciuss what is wrong with the various policies, especially now that the Government is clearly listening. We need a consensus policy that is fair to all, not just to the poor, or just to the well off.

djohn2002uk

EdInvestor wrote: »

Margaret doesn't need to apologise for pointing out that it is the taxpayer - you and me - not some amorphous Government or "state" that would end up paying for this so that someone else can get an inheritance .

Ed, I have searched this thread over and over and I still can't find this quote of Margarets in here.
I believe this is the quote you are referring to:-
You say your Mum 'feels conned that the State is unlikely to pay...' - well, for the State read the taxpayer, that's you and me.

Margaret was referring to paying for care, a totally different topic, which she also has strong views on but you shouldn't use quotes like this in this thread. This thread is purely about IHT and its allowances and neither you or Margaret or anyone else pays tax that makes any contribution to money that I have saved and already paid tax on, which I then wish to leave to my children free of any further tax.
You may think that if the government were to tax my money for a second time, it would save you paying quite so much for the first time. Do you think that's fair? because I don't.
Debate and discussion (as you put it) is o.k. but not when quotes are used out of context.

Edit. The government certainly wouldn't pay anything so that my kids can get an inheritance. If they do that's a new one on me.

localhero

The issue I have with this forum, is that people here seek advice for money matters etc - hence the website title moneysavingsexpert.

There are people who post replies with good intentions I'm sure, who don't always give appropriate advice.

But worse than that, there are also people who moralise over certain issues. For the people who rely on receiving the odd nugget of wisdom that can make a real change to their lives - this isn't helpful to them. It is not for us to judge, we should just help if we can and provide the facts so that informed decisions can be made.

EdInvestor

djohn2002uk wrote: »

Margaret was referring to paying for care, a totally different topic,

It's not totally different, it's closely linked: many of the discussions about avoiding the one are also about avoiding the other, as is much of the comment and advice from the legal and other will writing and financial advisors.

..there are also people who moralise over certain issues. It is not for us to judge, we should just help if we can and provide the facts so that informed decisions can be made.

I disagree.Policymakers and others involved in the financial system as well as MSEers as a whole, want and need to hear the views of ordinary people about matters impacting their financial position- whether it be IHT rules or long term care costs, unfair bank penalty charges or pensions issues.

These can have a political dimension so opinions will sometimes be conflicting. There is often no obvious correct way forward.

margaretclare

Thank you for your support, Ed.

It's true that we've seen posts from people asking the question 'how can we avoid paying care costs' (or words to that effect). And we often do see posts which say things like 'parents worked hard all their lives, saved to buy their own home, why should they use their assets to pay for care'. I agree that this is a separate issue from IHT. However, these 2 issues do often get conflated, and the same people who say 'why should we pay for care' are often the ones who also say 'I don't want to pay tax on my inheritance'. Well, that last is perhaps not quite how they phrase it - what they often say is 'I don't want Gordon Brown to get his hands on my money'. Read Alistair Darling now instead of Gordon Brown.

I've written in various places that for 'the state' read 'the taxpayer', in response to those who say 'the state should pay for.....' And have pointed out that the taxpayer is you and me. I've paid tax since about 1953 and am still paying it. So yes, I do confess to having written that.

It seems that opinion elsewhere is that the much-hyped IHT announcement is not all it's cracked up to be - 'cosmetic at best', as it says here. http://money.independent.co.uk/personal_finance/tax/article3058828.ece

I am also interested in politics, so I do take an interest in things that may not impact on me directly. IHT is certainly unlikely to affect me personally, the issue of paying for personal care could certainly affect me and that's one of the reasons why I'm still saving. This was interesting today, and very relevant: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=0BTNJQRYMPYTLQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2007/10/14/do1403.xml

Margaret

djohn2002uk

margaretclare wrote: »

This was interesting today, and very relevant: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=0BTNJQRYMPYTLQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2007/10/14/do1403.xml

Margaret

And by and large casts shame on the principle of having to sell ones home to pay for care. A principle that you and Ed seem to fervently believe in.
Shame on you both.

seven-day-weekend

margaretclare wrote: »

Why are people so bothered about what they can pass on to their beneficiaries? Why not maximise for yourself, your own life, own needs and own enjoyment?

Margaret

Margaret, you have said many times that you and your husband save so that you can have a new roof, or a new car, or additional aid/facilities in the house etc. That is what you want to save for.

Well some people save so that they can leave legacies and inheritances. That is what THEY save for. That is what they want to do with their money.

Both points of view are valid imho. Of course it is not always possible to leave an inheritance, but you can understand (at least I can) why the people are disappointed that they won't be able to. It's like you being told that you can't after all have your new roof but will have to spend your money on something else. You would be disappointed in that, wouldn't you, even if it was unavoidable?

People have different ideas of what they consider to be important.

EdInvestor

djohn2002uk wrote: »

And by and large casts shame on the principle of having to sell ones home to pay for care. A principle that you and Ed seem to fervently believe in.
Shame on you both.

I think you should look at how much it actually costs to pay for care before engaging in moral blackmail.Very few people need nursing care and the Government already contributes nearly a third of the average cost for those that are too well off or not sick enough to get public funding.

It could and should do more, especially for dementia victims -and for carers in general.

But many people who complain about selling the house to pay for care seem to be really saying they think the taxpayer should fund their inheritance.I'd say shame on them.Their parents' money should be spent on obtaining the best lifestyle possible in their final years.

EdInvestor

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Both points of view are valid imho. Of course it is not always possible to leave an inheritance, but you can understand (at least I can) why the people are disappointed that they won't be able to.

The average house that people are "forced to sell" to pay for long term care seems to be worth in the 150-200k range.

Using an immediate needs annuity,half of this money would buy a 15k per annum tax free income to top up a pension, which, with the Government's contribution, would cover all the cost of nursing care and still leave an inheritance of 75k for the family.

So what's all the whingeing about?

One suspects it may be because the family is a bit too greedy to use this system, which will guarantee peace of mind for the relative and money for them but mean they lose half the oldie's capital up front.

They learn that the average lifespan of people who go to care homes is 3 years, and decide to take a gamble and "pay as you go".(Often they are egged on by advisors who have their own agenda and tell them the annuities are "not value for money".

Many oldies of course live longer than that and the money quickly runs out, so everyone loses out, especially the short-sighted relatives.In fact with proper planning, it's quite possible for the average elderly singleton these days to self fund care and leave an inheritance as well, which is what most people of that generation wish to do.


BTW just to get back on topic, some statistics:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/inheritance_tax/menu.htm

See the note at the bottom: of the half a million people who died in the UK in 2005, only 5% of the estates paid inheritance tax.

Amazing the amount of fuss that has been created over such a vanishingly small problem. :rolleyes: