removed

[Cassius]

The savings made in inheritance tax would suggest otherwise (if of course you don't divorce)

[KalamityKel]

Tis a good point... oi mister Government fink about that... wot an incentive to stay married... *sarcasm*

[Cassius]

No it's an incentive to GET married! I sure as hell don't want anyone other than my family/loved ones to benefit from my death if I should die without proper tax planning.

[KalamityKel]

Well since u put it that way... who will marry me? ;-)

lol

[SeanMacGabhann]

y'see I'm the opposite - I assume my family/loved ones are quite capable human beings regardless of my existence. If my "estate" benefits a greater good I would, assuming I was still capable of thought in the afterlife, be quite pleased

I don't see the word as "my family and loved ones" versus everyone else. The old cliche of "strangers are just friends I haven't met yet" is one I think has some merit

[Brendan]

Commie!

[*Bob*]

It's all too easy to feel benevolent when you're under the threshold limit and perhaps don't have children.

Not so easy when you're over the threshold (by virtue of having worked all your life to pay off a mortgage), have already been taxed on your earnings and go to your grave knowing the chancellor will be scooping hundreds of thousands of pounds of your money which could be going to your children.

[Brendan]

Give it to them before you die.

[*Bob*]

You give it to them before you die, Brenders.

Quick. You never know what's round the corner.

[Brendan]

I think there is actually a time scale on that. You can give you kids whatever you want while you are alive but if you then die within a certain number of years they will get taxed on it. Not sure what the amount of time is though.

Or so I am led to believe but not having kids or very much to leave behind yet I have not really looked into it.

[Cassius]

Surely it's enough having to cope with the death of a family member without the threat of maybe having to sell the family home in order to pay for inheritance tax - it's not as if you have to even be that rich any more to get caught by it.

[Cassius]

The time scale used to be 7 years and it was a sliding scale of how much you paid % wise depending on how many years ago you gave the money - there were also allowances for 'wedding gifts' etc - seems strange that even your giving away your own money/possessions comes under the remit of tax inspectors.

[Brendan]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> y'see I'm the opposite - I assume my family/loved

> ones are quite capable human beings regardless of

> my existence. If my "estate" benefits a greater

> good I would, assuming I was still capable of

> thought in the afterlife, be quite pleased

Greater good? I thought it went to the government.

[*Bob*]

7 years, Brenders, 7 years and you're home (tax) free.

But if your nearest and dearest buy the farm before the 7 years is up then there's a sliding scale for repayment, depending on when they kicked the bucket.

Lovely, eh?

It must be nice to suddenly start getting wads of cash gifted by your folks.. perhaps spoiled slightly by the knowledge that they think they might not have that much longer left to go.

[ClareC]

If you have no will then the intestacy laws apply, cant remember the exact figures but the first chunk goes to spouse if you have one (even if your separated), then children, then parents, then siblings........... gradually gets remoter. Cant remember where grandchildren fit, think its after children but before parents! Its only when the relatives are exhausted that the state gets anything.

[SeanMacGabhann]

why would you have to sell the family home to pay for inheritance tax?

Bren - I don't necessarily see the function of government as a Bad Thing. Governments have bailed out whole nations and economies before because those trustworthy banks and train/oil/property barons messed up so badly. That doesn't mean that governments don't mess up too - but they are the only creation capable of dealing with national problems

[Brendan]

I was just being petulant Sean. I don?t disagree with the concept of government at all, just its implementation.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I hear that - but if someone has a better idea I'm always up for it

I do find the constant belittling of any political process very corrosive and self-defeating tho (not saying that's what you've done - just that it is everywhere, all the time, with nothing approaching a rational solution to the problems we face from many of the belittlers - see the BNP thread)

[*Bob*]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> why would you have to sell the family home to pay

> for inheritance tax?

(Up until the recent changes in IHT.. which only help-out those who are married or in civil partnerships)

If your average 3-bedder with mortgage paid (around here) is worth ?500k and the tax-free threshold limit is ?300k, when final parent dies, in order to keep the family home, child must pay 40% tax on the ?200k over the threshold in order to keep the house. Or sell the house in order to pay said 40%.

Fair? Or not..?

[SeanMacGabhann]

yep - I know the rules... and I think fair. Apart from being one of the few brakes on house prices rising (hey guys! if these prices keep rising as much as they do then we could end up liable for IHT! No worry bro.. the government will be forced to raise the limit and we'll be quids in!!! hi five!!!!!)

what it means is (and I'm potentially in this situation in the relatively near future) - a bunch of people, some of whom may or may not still live in the family home, inherit a property worth - say - half a million. They get to choose between selling the house and splitting the cash (after tax - still a hefty sum they weren't getting previously). Or.. they get a very, very, VERY cheap mortgage by taking out a loan to pay the tax bill...

If these 2 choices are just TOO heartbreaking to contemplate, there is always the real world....

[*Bob*]

'Potentially in this situation in the relatively near future' doesn't count.

Let's talk again in twenty years. You may feel differently.

I don't mind being taxed. I don't mind paying tax. But I simply cannot see how it can possibly be fair to be taxed AGAIN on the money which I've (essentially) managed to save all my life from my income which I've ALREADY been taxed on in the first place.

Taxed once is fair enough. Twice? That's just theft.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm not fundamentalist on this - my mind is open so let the dialogue continue

my argument about it being one of the few brakes on house prices - ok you can argue it has been pretty ineffective - but I still say if people weren't so damn greedy (and from your previous posts *Bob* I definitely don't see you as that) then they wouldn't be in a position to pay the damn thing.

Everyone flip-flops about house prices - bemoan when they can't afford something, rub their hands when they make ?200k - but goddammit house prices are way too high. End of. Simple economics explain the high house prices but simple economics (thank god) don't rule every aspect of our lives yet - we manage them (when we have the will)

House price rises are not income you have worked hard and are being taxed on twice - surely??? If you die then you aren't being taxed. If you are the young 'un inheriting the family home, how exactly are you being taxed twice?

[SeanMacGabhann]

oooh I meant to add - and if you were chancellor, how would you replace the income lost if you were to abolish IHT

When I say what would you do - I, of course, mean not in a theoretical way - but in a way that the electorate would buy. I, for example, might question the amount we spend on defence.. but then if I put my budget to the public I would expect to never get a sniff of power and thus be rendered useless

Whisper it - but rather than pay higher income tax, people (in an election) would probably prefer the current levels of IHT to higher headline level income tax. Even if they say they wouldn't. Of course people would probably rather scrap the NHS than pay levels of tax (versus 2 ringtones a week/skysports) but that's by the by...

[*Bob*]

I'm not up for abolishing IHT. But IHT was never meant to mean a man in a grey suit waiting for you to die so he can auction your house off and hand half the proceeds to the Chancellor. It was always assumed that your house would be your house, and only the *excessively wealthy* would be taxed. House prices may have risen and become laughably unaffordable to many, but I don't see how owning a three bed terrace suddenly means you're 'excessively wealthy' and need to be robbed blind when you die.

Essentially, the government (and the opposition) have now agreed that this is so and raised the threshold. But only if you're married. (I look forward to a trip to the Reg Office and pulling-in two strangers of the street as witnesses sometime soon.)

Houses are an investment. You're not buying a bit of timeshare fun in Spain. If you have to save your ass off for a deposit and commit most of your working life to paying it off, there ought to be a reward at the end of it.. and for whoever you want to leave it to.

What if you don't own a property for one reason or another but have saved half a million pounds? Still fair when you get double-clobbered?

[SeanMacGabhann]

And I was agreeing with your first paragraph or two as well

"Houses are an investment" ? Not in my book should they be - and historically they weren't really. I don't know of many previous generations which, without doing anything other than having their parents die, suddenly found themselves on half a mill (or the equivalent sum).

Houses were somewhere to live - a roof over a head. And should be. Houses haven't become so expensive overnight and with no help from Joe Public. It's when people realised they could "potentially" become 'excessively wealthy' that so many people have been sucked into the bracket. A 3 bed semi shouldn't qualify anyone as excessively wealthy - but even in today's money it often does (compared to... ooooohh lot's of people) .. and that ain't the governments fault. Well.... not wholly anyway.

If you SAVE half a million pounds - put money from your pay-packet aside - then no of course it's not fair. If you encounter half a million pounds because, through no effort of your, the housing "market" decrees it - pay the tax man!