Inheritance, who benefits?

I thought the Royalty properties and possession (like crown Jewels) were effectively state owned.
Yes, this is not a relevant argument in my opinion. The Royal’s couldn’t sell any of the prize assets they “own”, so there clearly no point taxing them. We own them and they use them at our pleasure.

Other tax loopholes used by their associated businesses are possibly less clear cut, but I imagine if there was every a revolution, the Royals wouldn’t keep any of their really valuable properties.
 
Not on the winnings in the UK.

Win the lottery in the US and you will get a very large tax bill.
Aren’t many bets taxed? Given that the house normally wins, isn’t it better to tax bets, rather than winnings?
 
Aren’t many bets taxed? Given that the house normally wins, isn’t it better to tax bets, rather than winnings?

It's done on the profits on a per Point Of Consumption Tax. It used to be the online ones got away with very little depending on where they were based.
 
It's done on the profits on a per Point Of Consumption Tax. It used to be the online ones got away with very little depending on where they were based.
Shows the last time I put a bet on (when you used to be taxed)!

House price inflation is more of a capital gain. I never understood why stamp duty was paid by the buyer, but no tax was paid on the capital gain by the seller from a fairly passive investment. I’m sure there are arguments either way though.
 
My friend’s dad died earlier this year. His estate was to be split between my friend and their sibling as per the instructions in his will.

My friends dad saved all his life, refused to go on holidays, only ever brought second hand cars, didn’t fix things like central heating when it failed in his house and relied on electric heaters. Wouldn’t even buy a new cooker when that gave up and just used a microwave.

He always saved his money for a rainy day saying you never know what might happen.

He had lived in the same house in a village not far from London for over 30 years and when the house was valued it was worth a considerable sum but well below the actual market value as it needed so much work doing on it.

Inheritance tax has now been calculated and they need to pay over £150,000 in tax.

My friend said he lived a miserable life really and saved and for what, for them to now lose a large chunk of their inheritance.

Ironically they would have been better off he had spent a lot of it and actually enjoyed his life.

So the government have got themselves a lovely chunk of cash for nothing!

Believe me my friend and her sibling are really bitter about it
 
It's done on the profits on a per Point Of Consumption Tax. It used to be the online ones got away with very little depending on where they were based.
Many moons ago before they made gambling tax free, you could opt to pay tax on the bet, to avoid paying tax on the winnings.
 
My friend’s dad died earlier this year. His estate was to be split between my friend and their sibling as per the instructions in his will.

My friends dad saved all his life, refused to go on holidays, only ever brought second hand cars, didn’t fix things like central heating when it failed in his house and relied on electric heaters. Wouldn’t even buy a new cooker when that gave up and just used a microwave.

He always saved his money for a rainy day saying you never know what might happen.

He had lived in the same house in a village not far from London for over 30 years and when the house was valued it was worth a considerable sum but well below the actual market value as it needed so much work doing on it.

Inheritance tax has now been calculated and they need to pay over £150,000 in tax.

My friend said he lived a miserable life really and saved and for what, for them to now lose a large chunk of their inheritance.

Ironically they would have been better off he had spent a lot of it and actually enjoyed his life.

So the government have got themselves a lovely chunk of cash for nothing!

Believe me my friend and her sibling are really bitter about it
What have they as individuals done to physically earn that inheritance?

How the person who died chose to live their life and not spend is irrelevant.

Father in Law rents and has no intention of owning a property, buys a newer car and holidays regularly, what he leaves to anyone will be any money left and goods, so well under the inheritance limit, but he will have enjoyed his own money in the interim.
 
What have they as individuals done to physically earn that inheritance?

How the person who died chose to live their life and not spend is irrelevant.

Father in Law rents and has no intention of owning a property, buys a newer car and holidays regularly, what he leaves to anyone will be any money left and goods, so well under the inheritance limit, but he will have enjoyed his own money in the interim.
What has the state done to deserve it?
 
My friend’s dad died earlier this year. His estate was to be split between my friend and their sibling as per the instructions in his will.

My friends dad saved all his life, refused to go on holidays, only ever brought second hand cars, didn’t fix things like central heating when it failed in his house and relied on electric heaters. Wouldn’t even buy a new cooker when that gave up and just used a microwave.

He always saved his money for a rainy day saying you never know what might happen.

He had lived in the same house in a village not far from London for over 30 years and when the house was valued it was worth a considerable sum but well below the actual market value as it needed so much work doing on it.

Inheritance tax has now been calculated and they need to pay over £150,000 in tax.

My friend said he lived a miserable life really and saved and for what, for them to now lose a large chunk of their inheritance.

Ironically they would have been better off he had spent a lot of it and actually enjoyed his life.

So the government have got themselves a lovely chunk of cash for nothing!

Believe me my friend and her sibling are really bitter about it
I guess that was his choice. In my experience, people are hardwired to be savers or spenders, so it’s often not in a persons nature to “chose” to blow money to avoid the tax man getting it. Ironically the tax man gets his cut one way or the other - if you spends it you pay tax/vat etc, but if you keep too much of it, you pay IHT. That’s life. (Unless you’re the Duke of Westminster).

I think the dislike of IHT is partly emotional. People take exception to their dead relative being taxed, whereas it’s just really another revenue for the tax man.
 
Built roads, hospitals and schools.
I'd suggest that if we had better roads, hospitals and schools there would be less resistance to paying more tax.

And in all three examples, more money doesn't necessarily = better services.
 
You could say that about any tax though.
With many taxes there's an element of choice.

The government has older people over a barrel really. Spend your money and then throw yourself on the mercy of the state to look after you. Or act responsibly to ensure you're not a drain on the state and the state will punish you financially for doing so.

Which is just about ok to a point, but I'm not sure the government should be entitled to any more than they already get.
 
With many taxes there's an element of choice.

The government has older people over a barrel really. Spend your money and then throw yourself on the mercy of the state to look after you. Or act responsibly to ensure you're not a drain on the state and the state will punish you financially for doing so.

Which is just about ok to a point, but I'm not sure the government should be entitled to any more than they already get.
Remember that the people who die aren’t being taxed, it’s the beneficiaries.
 
With many taxes there's an element of choice.

The government has older people over a barrel really. Spend your money and then throw yourself on the mercy of the state to look after you. Or act responsibly to ensure you're not a drain on the state and the state will punish you financially for doing so.

Which is just about ok to a point, but I'm not sure the government should be entitled to any more than they already get.
I get what you’re saying, but the tax has to be raised somehow. How should the deficit be made up? Higher income tax? Higher VAT? It’s about spreading the burden fairly, and taxing a dead person is arguably fair, as they don’t need the money. If they don’t want the government to get it after they die, they can give it away beforehand. It’s fair in many ways. What’s unfair is the Duke of Westminster avoiding it.

I know governments (both Labour and Tory) should be held to account over the money they spaff away, but saying that governments should stop wasting money then we’d need less tax isn’t realistically going to happen.
 
Remember that the people who die aren’t being taxed, it’s the beneficiaries.

No, it's the estate that is being taxed, and the IHT, if applicable, will be paid by the executor to HMRC.

Beneficiaries have no tax to pay, they just get a reduced amount given to them.

While the net result is the same, it is subtly different.
 
The problem is that property prices are so crazy that your home can easily take you into the IHT bracket. If they weren’t, it’d just be a rich person’s tax (and I dare say we’d all be in favour of it!).

So true. Years ago, it was only wealthy people who had to consider IHT/death duties, now it's anyone with a house in this part of Sussex.
 
So true. Years ago, it was only wealthy people who had to consider IHT/death duties, now it's anyone with a house in this part of Sussex.

Yep and that seems to be demonstrated by this increasing chart. (Inheritance Tax statistics: commentary)

1670323729425.png


It's likely to be the impact of property prices pushing estates (including primary residences) beyond £500k threshold for a single parent and £1M for two parents, which isn't hard depending on where you live in the country and that those parents might have brought the house for a relatively trivial amount in the past.

These are ordinary people that are getting screwed, not "mega" rich people by any stretch of the imagination.

Meanwhile, the Duke of Westminster IHT bill would have been nearly 50% of the amount of the entire receipt for the year, according to the papers.
 
Yep and that seems to be demonstrated by this increasing chart. (Inheritance Tax statistics: commentary)

View attachment 1792081

It's likely to be the impact of property prices pushing estates (including primary residences) beyond £500k threshold for a single parent and £1M for two parents, which isn't hard depending on where you live in the country and that those parents might have brought the house for a relatively trivial amount in the past.

These are ordinary people that are getting screwed, not "mega" rich people by any stretch of the imagination.

Meanwhile, the Duke of Westminster IHT bill would have been nearly 50% of the amount of the entire receipt for the year, according to the papers.
"Getting screwed" is a bit OTT. Paying some tax on receipt of hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of assets you did nothing to earn hardly makes you a victim.
 
"Getting screwed" is a bit OTT. Paying some tax on your receipt of hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of assets you did nothing to earn hardly makes you a victim.

It's not, though; typically, it's the middle that is getting screwed. I'll use the word again.

It's the estate paying tax, not the individual, people have already paid taxes.

Coming back to the emotive bit, you and I have no idea what the people inheriting the money did or didn't do to "earn" the money that comes their way. Unlike, say, a job where the more you earn, the more you pay in tax (usually) which is clear cut.

Take, for example, the asset-rich, cash-poor person that happens to have lived in the family house over the years, bought for a couple of grand in the seventies and has gone up to £1.5M. In some parts of the country doesn't get you a lot and will now owe a minimum IHT tax bill of £200k, it could be as much as £400k, depending on their circumstances. That would mean the family home has to be sold to pay the IHT.

Let's make it really emotive, imagine that person that died is a single parent aged 45, who isn't that financial savvy, with two children, aged 18 and 16. Are "we" going to kick the kids out of their family house to redistribute the "wealth"?
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom