Chatter about IHT changes/abolishment

mebu60

coastline said:

Well £325,000 basic IHT allowance is pretty low considering what the purpose was decades ago. It's hitting ordinary folk in the country with modest homes. Yes there's a doubling up if you're married and a £175,000 housing allowance but it's never been increased for years . Basic allowance would be £500,000 if inflation was added since last calculation. I've read lifting to a simple £500,000 per person wouldn't cost much at all and a few billion at most. Why single people don't get the £175,000 housing is a bit unfair really when they have family to leave money to. No different to anybody else.

We do get it. 

Olinda99

single people get the 175k if they have direct descendants

subjecttocontract

I want ordinary people to pay IHT otherwise the rest of us will eventually have to make up the shortfall. You can't have a better everything, even under a Labour Gov, without people paying taxes.

artyboy

subjecttocontract said:

I want ordinary people to pay IHT otherwise the rest of us will eventually have to make up the shortfall. You can't have a better everything, even under a Labour Gov, without people paying taxes.

"Ordinary" is a very subjective term, especially where tax thresholds are concerned.

But in this case, I think you actually meant "Dead" 🤣

ETA - I wouldn't worry about who will pay under a labour government - Non-Dom taxes and possibly a few more windfall levies will sort that. Because they don't want to alienate the chattering middle classes by suggesting it will fall on their shoulders...

subjecttocontract

artyboy said:

subjecttocontract said:

I want ordinary people to pay IHT otherwise the rest of us will eventually have to make up the shortfall. You can't have a better everything, even under a Labour Gov, without people paying taxes.

"Ordinary" is a very subjective term, especially where tax thresholds are concerned.

But in this case, I think you actually meant "dead" 🤣

No. I was referring to an earlier contributor who posted that IHT was affecting ordinary people with ordinary houses.
I think those ordinary people should continue to pay IHT.
The country will need all the taxes it can raise if any Gov' is going to deliver on their promises.

artyboy

subjecttocontract said:

artyboy said:

subjecttocontract said:

I want ordinary people to pay IHT otherwise the rest of us will eventually have to make up the shortfall. You can't have a better everything, even under a Labour Gov, without people paying taxes.

"Ordinary" is a very subjective term, especially where tax thresholds are concerned.

But in this case, I think you actually meant "dead" 🤣

No. I was referring to an earlier contributor who posted that IHT was affecting ordinary people with ordinary houses.
I think those ordinary people should continue to pay IHT.
The country will need all the taxes it can raise if any Gov' is going to deliver on their promises.

Ah right, without a quote the context was missing but I get you now.

Honestly though, I'm not exactly motivated to go and get another job right now. Aside from any other taxes that labour might dream up, my state pension is already fully paid and I still
have close to 20 years to wait for it.

Maybe I should go and brick up some of my windows just in case.

friolento

artyboy said:

 

my state pension is already fully paid and I still
have close to 20 years to wait for it.
 

Probably more of a subject for the Pensions board but just to say nobody pays for their state pension. If you mean you have earned enough entitlement to receive a full state pension upon retirement, that's different. But it will be paid by those who work when you draw it, not from your contributions. Assuming there will still be a state pension as we know it now in 20 years time.

artyboy

friolento said:

artyboy said:

 

my state pension is already fully paid and I still
have close to 20 years to wait for it.
 

Probably more of a subject for the Pensions board but just to say nobody pays for their state pension. If you mean you have earned enough entitlement to receive a full state pension upon retirement, that's different. But it will be paid by those who work when you draw it, not from your contributions. Assuming there will still be a state pension as we know it now in 20 years time.

...and in turn, you're not exactly motivating brevity in my future posts 🤣

Yes, I do get that anything that the government may 'owe' you in future comes with a heap of caveats. At least I did my bit in breeding 2 children with a decent work ethic to keep the taxes flowing...

newatc

I'd like to see the gift allowance to be raised significantly as no inflation increases haven't be applied for many a year.
I would be a good way to encourage comfortable and rich pensioners to pass funds down to the younger ones who might need it more and spend it to enrich the economy.

Eco_Miser

newatc said:

I'd like to see the gift allowance to be raised significantly as no inflation increases haven't be applied for many a year.
I would be a good way to encourage comfortable and rich pensioners to pass funds down to the younger ones who might need it more and spend it to enrich the economy.

Actually, the lack of a gift allowance should be a good way to encourage comfortable and rich pensioners to pass funds down to the younger ones who might need it more and spend it to enrich the economy, and then live a further seven years.

Remember the gift allowance is only relevant if the donor doesn't survive seven years (give or take some tapering).

I've done the first part, with way more than the gift allowance, and am attempting the second part.

Or were you meaning the unlimited  number of £250 gifts to separate individuals? Increasing that would be useful.