IHT – unmarried and childless? Discriminatory IHT .. needs reform !

wolvoman

What an odd thread.

How can you be discriminated against because of something you (by your own admission) choose to do?

It’s a bit insulting to those who suffer real discrimination in their lives because of things they have no choice over.

Emmia

wolvoman said:

What an odd thread.

How can you be discriminated against because of something you (by your own admission) choose to do?

It’s a bit insulting to those who suffer real discrimination in their lives because of things they have no choice over.

Sometimes choice is removed.

Personally I'd remove the additional allowance for people with kids and make it a flat rate of say £500k per person.

wolvoman

Emmia said:

wolvoman said:

What an odd thread.

How can you be discriminated against because of something you (by your own admission) choose to do?

It’s a bit insulting to those who suffer real discrimination in their lives because of things they have no choice over.

Sometimes choice is removed.

Personally I'd remove the additional allowance for people with kids and make it a flat rate of say £500k per person.

What is the additional allowance for people with kids?

£325k base allowance. £500 nil rate band to include residence. Partner can transfer their nil rate band across.
= £1m

Does it matter whether there is children involved?

fuzzzzy

wolvoman said:

Emmia said:

wolvoman said:

What an odd thread.

How can you be discriminated against because of something you (by your own admission) choose to do?

It’s a bit insulting to those who suffer real discrimination in their lives because of things they have no choice over.

Sometimes choice is removed.

Personally I'd remove the additional allowance for people with kids and make it a flat rate of say £500k per person.

What is the additional allowance for people with kids?

£325k base allowance. £500 nil rate band to include residence. Partner can transfer their nil rate band across.
= £1m

Does it matter whether there is children involved?

You only get the £175K residential nil rate band if you leave the house to your kids or grandkids. That is the point of the thread.

Emmia

wolvoman said:

Emmia said:

wolvoman said:

What an odd thread.

How can you be discriminated against because of something you (by your own admission) choose to do?

It’s a bit insulting to those who suffer real discrimination in their lives because of things they have no choice over.

Sometimes choice is removed.

Personally I'd remove the additional allowance for people with kids and make it a flat rate of say £500k per person.

What is the additional allowance for people with kids?

£325k base allowance. £500 nil rate band to include residence. Partner can transfer their nil rate band across.
= £1m

Does it matter whether there is children involved?

You only get £1m if you have kids (to include property)

So, yes it does fundamentally matter whether there are children or not.

poseidon1

wolvoman said:

Emmia said:

wolvoman said:

What an odd thread.

How can you be discriminated against because of something you (by your own admission) choose to do?

It’s a bit insulting to those who suffer real discrimination in their lives because of things they have no choice over.

Sometimes choice is removed.

Personally I'd remove the additional allowance for people with kids and make it a flat rate of say £500k per person.

What is the additional allowance for people with kids?

£325k base allowance. £500 nil rate band to include residence. Partner can transfer their nil rate band across.
= £1m

Does it matter whether there is children involved?

You are evidently unaware that the extra £175k residence nil rate band only applies to individuals who have children who will directly benefit from inheriting the residence.

No children no residence NRB , so childless couples only have £650k in joint NRBs rather than the £1 million you seem to think automatically applies.

monkey-fingers

Emmia said:

wolvoman said:

What an odd thread.

How can you be discriminated against because of something you (by your own admission) choose to do?

It’s a bit insulting to those who suffer real discrimination in their lives because of things they have no choice over.

Sometimes choice is removed.

Personally I'd remove the additional allowance for people with kids and make it a flat rate of say £500k per person.

Choice is rarely removed.
Just because you can't have children doesn't stop you adopting.

Emmia

monkey-fingers said:

Emmia said:

wolvoman said:

What an odd thread.

How can you be discriminated against because of something you (by your own admission) choose to do?

It’s a bit insulting to those who suffer real discrimination in their lives because of things they have no choice over.

Sometimes choice is removed.

Personally I'd remove the additional allowance for people with kids and make it a flat rate of say £500k per person.

Choice is rarely removed.
Just because you can't have children doesn't stop you adopting.

I think choosing to adopt us also not necessarily possible. Having known people go down that route it's not something that personally I want to do. It's an onerous and personally invasive process. People who say "just adopt" are clearly unaware of the challenges that poses. It isn't like getting a dog from a rescue.

Fundamentally children up for adoption may not have had the best start, so you'd have to be prepared for that too. There aren't loads of babies waiting to be adopted.

Those that cannot have children easily, include single people, and those who are same sex attracted... particularly gay men.  And if course some parents sadly, outlive their children. The current IHT arrangements are fundamentally discriminatory against lots of different people.

monkey-fingers

Emmia said:

monkey-fingers said:

Emmia said:

wolvoman said:

What an odd thread.

How can you be discriminated against because of something you (by your own admission) choose to do?

It’s a bit insulting to those who suffer real discrimination in their lives because of things they have no choice over.

Sometimes choice is removed.

Personally I'd remove the additional allowance for people with kids and make it a flat rate of say £500k per person.

Choice is rarely removed.
Just because you can't have children doesn't stop you adopting.

I think choosing to adopt us also not necessarily possible. Having known people go down that route it's not something that personally I want to do. It's an onerous and personally invasive process. People who say "just adopt" are clearly unaware of the challenges that poses. It isn't like getting a dog from a rescue.

Fundamentally children up for adoption may not have had the best start, so you'd have to be prepared for that too. There aren't loads of babies waiting to be adopted.

Those that cannot have children easily, include single people, and those who are same sex attracted... particularly gay men.  And if course some parents sadly, outlive their children. The current IHT arrangements are fundamentally discriminatory against lots of different people.

We know a number of same-sex couples who have children. Clearly, where the couple are both female, there are more options, but even so, we have male friends with children - one of whom has recently become a father via IVF and a donor mother.

I understand what you are saying and yes, rightly it is an invasive process. But as you say, it's something you've chosen not to do.

It's not discriminatory. As it stands, there are a number of things that stand out as being discrimination in law. Being childless is not one of those.

During Covid, my wife was furloughed along with 3 of her female colleagues. All on 100% pay.
She was brought back 3 months earlier than they, because they had children. And no, sadly, she wasn't discriminated against. Parenthood is NOT a protected characteristic. And she can't play the sexual discrimination angle, because they were all female.

Emmia

monkey-fingers said:

Emmia said:

monkey-fingers said:

Emmia said:

wolvoman said:

What an odd thread.

How can you be discriminated against because of something you (by your own admission) choose to do?

It’s a bit insulting to those who suffer real discrimination in their lives because of things they have no choice over.

Sometimes choice is removed.

Personally I'd remove the additional allowance for people with kids and make it a flat rate of say £500k per person.

Choice is rarely removed.
Just because you can't have children doesn't stop you adopting.

I think choosing to adopt us also not necessarily possible. Having known people go down that route it's not something that personally I want to do. It's an onerous and personally invasive process. People who say "just adopt" are clearly unaware of the challenges that poses. It isn't like getting a dog from a rescue.

Fundamentally children up for adoption may not have had the best start, so you'd have to be prepared for that too. There aren't loads of babies waiting to be adopted.

Those that cannot have children easily, include single people, and those who are same sex attracted... particularly gay men.  And if course some parents sadly, outlive their children. The current IHT arrangements are fundamentally discriminatory against lots of different people.

We know a number of same-sex couples who have children. Clearly, where the couple are both female, there are more options, but even so, we have male friends with children - one of whom has recently become a father via IVF and a donor mother.

I understand what you are saying and yes, rightly it is an invasive process. But as you say, it's something you've chosen not to do.

It's not discriminatory. As it stands, there are a number of things that stand out as being discrimination in law. Being childless is not one of those.

During Covid, my wife was furloughed along with 3 of her female colleagues. All on 100% pay.
She was brought back 3 months earlier than they, because they had children. And no, sadly, she wasn't discriminated against. Parenthood is NOT a protected characteristic. And she can't play the sexual discrimination angle, because they were all female.

We'll have to agree to disagree.