Inheritance Tax

[Bristol Red Rover]

It seems as it stands, that paying inheritance tax is optional, and you can opt for ways of avoiding paying it. That seems fair enough. If you don't agree with avoiding paying it, you can choose to pay it and rest peacefully in heaven while your family actually do the forking out for your generosity.

In a different scenario, if IHT is abolished you can donate the equivalent to a charity or something.

Charity - we don't need taxes at all really. Scrap them all, people will give to charity.

JR-M for PM! 

Is that an answer or just a silly outburst?

" if IHT is abolished you can donate the equivalent to a charity or something"

My point is charity is not a solution. You know that. So why mention it? It is very much the kind of thing JR-M would champion along with the rest of his Victoriana.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Last time I checked, charities didn't pay for railways or the armed services.

[Bentley Bullet]

It seems as it stands, that paying inheritance tax is optional, and you can opt for ways of avoiding paying it. That seems fair enough. If you don't agree with avoiding paying it, you can choose to pay it and rest peacefully in heaven while your family actually do the forking out for your generosity.

In a different scenario, if IHT is abolished you can donate the equivalent to a charity or something.

Charity - we don't need taxes at all really. Scrap them all, people will give to charity.

JR-M for PM! 

Is that an answer or just a silly outburst?

" if IHT is abolished you can donate the equivalent to a charity or something"

My point is charity is not a solution. You know that. So why mention it? It is very much the kind of thing JR-M would champion along with the rest of his Victoriana.

It seems as it stands, that paying inheritance tax is optional, and you can opt for ways of avoiding paying it. That seems fair enough. If you don't agree with avoiding paying it, you can choose to pay it and rest peacefully in heaven while your family actually do the forking out for your generosity.

In a different scenario, if IHT is abolished you can donate the equivalent to a charity or something.

Charity - we don't need taxes at all really. Scrap them all, people will give to charity.

JR-M for PM! 

Is that an answer or just a silly outburst?

" if IHT is abolished you can donate the equivalent to a charity or something"

My point is charity is not a solution. You know that. So why mention it? It is very much the kind of thing JR-M would champion along with the rest of his Victoriana.

Charity is not a solution to what?

[Bentley Bullet]

Last time I checked, charities didn't pay for railways or the armed services.

Who the f**k suggested they did? Are you being deliberately stupid or just on the wind-up?

[Bristol Red Rover]

People being charged IHT have also paid tax on their income, as well as their spending, and are now unfairly having their hard-earned wealth taxed a third time upon death.

Tax helps adjust the inherant imbalance in a "free" economy, IHT is one important check/balance in this. It enables lots of good things including raising the prosperity of a state - it benefits everyone. The "loss" from IHT is fairly minimal for inheritees who have anyway likely benefitted from relative prosperity that fell into their laps. It's win win for them.

As I said earlier, the problem with IHT are the loopholes some of which have been outlined above, and the offshore scams. They should be closed.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Last time I checked, charities didn't pay for railways or the armed services.

Who the f**k suggested they did? Are you being deliberately stupid or just on the wind-up?

[Bristol Red Rover]

Charity is not a solution to what?

It's not a solution to redressing the inherant imbalances in a "free" economy. That is part of what tax is about. Charity can come on top of that, the cream on the cake if you like. You were suggesting taking away a progressive tax to be replaced by donations that would inevitably mean less would go to basic needy causes. That creates an impoverished society. Is that what you want? JR-M does.

[Bentley Bullet]

Last time I checked, charities didn't pay for railways or the armed services.

Who the f**k suggested they did? Are you being deliberately stupid or just on the wind-up?

Oh, I see, stupid. Thanks for answering a question for once, anyway.

[Bentley Bullet]

Charity is not a solution to what?

It's not a solution to redressing the inherant imbalances in a "free" economy. That is part of what tax is about. Charity can come on top of that, the cream on the cake if you like. You were suggesting taking away a progressive tax to be replaced by donations that would inevitably mean less would go to basic needy causes. That creates an impoverished society. Is that what you want? JR-M does.

I never said it was a solution. I said it was an option for those who would feel so guilty about keeping hold of their money if IHT was abolished.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The fact that you make this into a question of "feeling guilty" is very illuminating.

You haven't actually got a clue, have you?

[Bentley Bullet]

What you mean owd lad is you haven't got a clue how to answer a question directly so you have to criticise how it is asked.

Maybe you can ask what 'owd lad' means next.

[danumdon]

People being charged IHT have also paid tax on their income, as well as their spending, and are now unfairly having their hard-earned wealth taxed a third time upon death.

Tax helps adjust the inherant imbalance in a "free" economy, IHT is one important check/balance in this. It enables lots of good things including raising the prosperity of a state - it benefits everyone. The "loss" from IHT is fairly minimal for inheritees who have anyway likely benefitted from relative prosperity that fell into their laps. It's win win for them.

As I said earlier, the problem with IHT are the loopholes some of which have been outlined above, and the offshore scams. They should be closed.

Why is it that every post on this subject you make comes across as deeply envious and scrounging, in effect to be given something for nothing (as you keep referring to beneficiaries of IHT)

I'm imagining that most on here are not of the mega-loaded disposition that you keep referring to but people who through their own hard work and endeavours have managed to make something of themselves and been rewarded for it. These are the people who this discussion is based around, not some gin swilling oik who has inherited a pile from the landed family. Nobody has any dispute in this demographic being forced to pay their dues.

When you are in effect trying to cream off even more of a tax take of people who have worked, paid tax and in he process more than paid their dues to the rest of society, this type of talk will not sit well with the silent majority in this country.

Like i said earlier everyone in this society is a stakeholder and needs to understand that this should not be a something for nothing culture, everyone should contribute even if its a tiny fraction, people need to understand this.

Nearly 50% of the Uk workforce pay no income tax yet are entitled to have a say on how the other 50% are taxed and more importantly on how that tax is distributed.

What did they say about "no taxation without representation"

Maybe a policy of "no representation without taxation would result in a more prosperous and representative country?

[BillyStubbsTears]

DD

Nobody in this country pays no tax.

[danumdon]

DD

Nobody in this country pays no tax.

Who mentioned anything about "no tax", i clearly mentioned income tax, a tax that a large proportion pay none of.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And I'll say again. If you eliminate IHT, you've either got to find £7bn of spending cuts.

That's 9% of the Education budget. 22% of the Defence Budget.

Or you have to increase other taxes. Like adding 1% onto VAT, which would mean a lot of very unwealthy people paying more tax to subsidise a few relatively wealthy people.

So what do you want to do?

[Bentley Bullet]

DD

Nobody in this country pays no tax.

The Trotters pay no income tax or VAT, so that's two for a start.

[BillyStubbsTears]

DD

Nobody in this country pays no tax.

Who mentioned anything about "no tax", i clearly mentioned income tax, a tax that a large proportion pay none of.

DD.

You suggested " no representation without taxation".

I said no-one in this country pays no tax.

[danumdon]

Subtle difference between income tax and indirect taxes,

One is demanded by order of the state, the other is a personal preference that you can ultimately decide upon.

[BillyStubbsTears]

You want to go off and try to "ultimately decide on" living your life in a way that incurs zero indirect tax?

Good luck.

[danumdon]

You want to go off and try to "ultimately decide on" living your life in a way that incurs zero indirect tax?

Good luck.

You know exactly what im saying, with income tax most don't have any other choice than to pay their due. With indirect taxes you cut your cloth accordingly.

Why would anyone mention trying to " live your life in a way that incurs zero indirect tax"  !

[normal rules]

If you are in a certain financial position , you can contribute a substantial amount of your salary into your pension with substantial tax relief. You can in fact contribute 100% of your current salary into a pension pot, with certain tax caveats. Thereby paying no income tax on that salary at all.

[danumdon]

If you are in a certain financial position , you can contribute a substantial amount of your salary into your pension with substantial tax relief. You can in fact contribute 100% of your current salary into a pension pot, with certain tax caveats. Thereby paying no income tax on that salary at all.

That's right but they only pay tax relief up to a 60k maximum. anything over that is better invested in an ISA.

[normal rules]

If you are in a certain financial position , you can contribute a substantial amount of your salary into your pension with substantial tax relief. You can in fact contribute 100% of your current salary into a pension pot, with certain tax caveats. Thereby paying no income tax on that salary at all.

That's right but they only pay tax relief up to a 60k maximum. anything over that is better invested in an ISA.

Trouble is with ISA’s is their 20k limit per person per financial year. Something I do think should be re visited by the govt.

[BillyStubbsTears]

DD

The point is, EVERYONE pays tax. The poorer you are, the lower you pay in income tax as a percentage of your income and the more you pay in indirect tax.

There's a certain level of indirect tax that you just cannot avoid unless you cut your cloth so thinly that there's nothing left.

Everyone has to buy clothes.

Everyone has to spend something on heating - nearly everyone on keeping a car on the road and insuring themselves and their property.

You suggested there should be no representation without taxation, and you did so in a post that concentrated entirely on direct taxation.

Concentrating on direct taxation is misleading. But it's a theme that regularly gets pushed by right wing commentators. I wonder why ...

[danumdon]

If you are in a certain financial position , you can contribute a substantial amount of your salary into your pension with substantial tax relief. You can in fact contribute 100% of your current salary into a pension pot, with certain tax caveats. Thereby paying no income tax on that salary at all.

That's right but they only pay tax relief up to a 60k maximum. anything over that is better invested in an ISA.

Trouble is with ISA’s is their 20k limit per person per financial year. Something I do think should be re visited by the govt.

There is talk of increasing the threshold of certain ISA's that will be invested in "UK sourced investments" sounds like a sure fire way to loose a bundle if the current UK stock market returns are anything to go by.

[BillyStubbsTears]

DD.

YOU were the one who mooted the idea of people not being allowed to vote if they didn't pay tax.

I just pointed out that everyone pays tax.

So, frankly, I haven't got a clue what that little explosion was about.

You? Saying that? Then calling someone else a fascist?

I think you need to stop and have a bit of a think.

[danumdon]

Yep, fair enough.

[normal rules]

If you are in a certain financial position , you can contribute a substantial amount of your salary into your pension with substantial tax relief. You can in fact contribute 100% of your current salary into a pension pot, with certain tax caveats. Thereby paying no income tax on that salary at all.

That's right but they only pay tax relief up to a 60k maximum. anything over that is better invested in an ISA.

Trouble is with ISA’s is their 20k limit per person per financial year. Something I do think should be re visited by the govt.

There is talk of increasing the threshold of certain ISA's that will be invested in "UK sourced investments" sounds like a sure fire way to loose a bundle if the current UK stock market returns are anything to go by.

I don’t know about that.
I invested heavily in Rolls Royce shares a just over year ago predicting a post covid bounce back and increased demand for engines. They are up 189% as of today.

[Bentley Bullet]

"China, India and Russia all have no inheritance taxes. Several developed countries, including Australia, Israel and New Zealand, have chosen to abolish inheritance taxes in order to create simpler tax systems and encourage the creation of wealth, whether through investment or entrepreneurship."

[SydneyRover]

"China, India and Russia all have no inheritance taxes. Several developed countries, including Australia, Israel and New Zealand, have chosen to abolish inheritance taxes in order to create simpler tax systems and encourage the creation of wealth, whether through investment or entrepreneurship."

Not true