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

mybestattempt

fuzzzzy said:

Emmia said:

mlz1413 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.

The argument isn't just about not being able to have children.  
It is about not wanting to have children too.

Why because I chose not to have children do I have to give the government more than those who do have children?

I am asking the same question the OP started with, why are people without children being treated differently?

Change the allowance rules to be only be for couples married before child birth and I bet the argument would headline news within hours!

Governments want people to have children, there is a falling birthrate and people are fundamentally living longer, so pensions are paid for longer and pensioners are more likely to need (expensive) NHS treatment. This is why through IHT the government incentivises having kids... Although they arguably disincentivise it via the limits on child benefit.

There are a smaller and smaller group of working age tax payers, supporting a larger and larger group of grey haired wrinkles, who are a bit untouchable in terms of raising taxes, NI isn't paid for example if you work beyond a certain age, the triple lock seems sacrosanct, and if you own a property the mortgage is probably paid off... Plus your pension is likely to be fairly healthy.

Meanwhile, university education in England is cripplingly expensive, AI may take entry level roles that those in their 20s would start in... And with no forced retirement age, those grey wrinklies are also in some areas job blocking... Preventing people moving up and freeing up their roles in turn. 

I know people argue that there are lots of poor old people, but unfortunately the same is probably true of other age groups

You may be a grey haired wrinkly yourself one day. You can make a point without being so offensive you know.

I agree and would add that I doubt a decision to have children is influenced by the thought of one's estate paying less IHT in the future.

I also respect anyone's decision to not have children and feel very sympathetic for those who's wish to have children is unfulfilled.

I'm a parent and grandparent who believes the RNRB should be abolished.

Emmia

fuzzzzy said:

Emmia said:

mlz1413 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.

The argument isn't just about not being able to have children.  
It is about not wanting to have children too.

Why because I chose not to have children do I have to give the government more than those who do have children?

I am asking the same question the OP started with, why are people without children being treated differently?

Change the allowance rules to be only be for couples married before child birth and I bet the argument would headline news within hours!

Governments want people to have children, there is a falling birthrate and people are fundamentally living longer, so pensions are paid for longer and pensioners are more likely to need (expensive) NHS treatment. This is why through IHT the government incentivises having kids... Although they arguably disincentivise it via the limits on child benefit.

There are a smaller and smaller group of working age tax payers, supporting a larger and larger group of grey haired wrinkles, who are a bit untouchable in terms of raising taxes, NI isn't paid for example if you work beyond a certain age, the triple lock seems sacrosanct, and if you own a property the mortgage is probably paid off... Plus your pension is likely to be fairly healthy.

Meanwhile, university education in England is cripplingly expensive, AI may take entry level roles that those in their 20s would start in... And with no forced retirement age, those grey wrinklies are also in some areas job blocking... Preventing people moving up and freeing up their roles in turn. 

I know people argue that there are lots of poor old people, but unfortunately the same is probably true of other age groups

You may be a grey haired wrinkly yourself one day. You can make a point without being so offensive you know.

I will be, how would you prefer I express it? Old people? Those in their vintage years? Pensioners? 

I'm not trying to be offensive, but as someone in the middle I see inequality in terms of different financial burdens and situations.

fuzzzzy

Emmia said:

fuzzzzy said:

Emmia said:

mlz1413 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.

The argument isn't just about not being able to have children.  
It is about not wanting to have children too.

Why because I chose not to have children do I have to give the government more than those who do have children?

I am asking the same question the OP started with, why are people without children being treated differently?

Change the allowance rules to be only be for couples married before child birth and I bet the argument would headline news within hours!

Governments want people to have children, there is a falling birthrate and people are fundamentally living longer, so pensions are paid for longer and pensioners are more likely to need (expensive) NHS treatment. This is why through IHT the government incentivises having kids... Although they arguably disincentivise it via the limits on child benefit.

There are a smaller and smaller group of working age tax payers, supporting a larger and larger group of grey haired wrinkles, who are a bit untouchable in terms of raising taxes, NI isn't paid for example if you work beyond a certain age, the triple lock seems sacrosanct, and if you own a property the mortgage is probably paid off... Plus your pension is likely to be fairly healthy.

Meanwhile, university education in England is cripplingly expensive, AI may take entry level roles that those in their 20s would start in... And with no forced retirement age, those grey wrinklies are also in some areas job blocking... Preventing people moving up and freeing up their roles in turn. 

I know people argue that there are lots of poor old people, but unfortunately the same is probably true of other age groups

You may be a grey haired wrinkly yourself one day. You can make a point without being so offensive you know.

I will be, how would you prefer I express it? Old people? Those in their vintage years? Pensioners? 

I'm not trying to be offensive, but as someone in the middle I see inequality in terms of different financial burdens and situations.

Pensioners would be fine, the term you did indeed begin your comment with before you degenerated into calling them grey haired wrinklies.

Yes there are inequalities everywhere but the quality of the discussion about these issues is not helped by referring to old or young as homogeneous groups in a derogatory way.

Some of your comments are rather silly too. The RNRB was not brought in to incentivise people to have children.

In my mind the RNRB should not have been brought in - why should anyone get an allowance for unearned wealth made through house price inflation? If there was a mechanism to do it I would like to see people taxed 100% on death on unearned gains made throughout their life through house price inflation above the general rate of inflation. This money could be ploughed into affordable housing for the younger generation.