removed

[*Bob*]

I don't agree that houses have only recently become an investment. My Gran and Grandad bought their first house for ?450 and sold it several years later for ?800. That was well over half a century ago.

So what you're saying is if you made money 'unfairly' (ie by means of a rising housing market) then you should have to suffer a burden of IHT? Putting aside (for now) the thorny issue of what 'making money fairly' means in a capitalist country.. I assume then that the Government of Sean will be offering full compensation to anyone unlucky enough to lose money unfairly (ie by means of a falling housing market)?

[SeanMacGabhann]

I wouldn't use the word "unfairly" - and putting it in quotes suggests you are quoting me - tsk

* pauses to check I used it or not - phew *

I would say "un-earned" tho

nobody is (or should be) lucky or unlucky in the whole housing market. General inflation and (technical term alert!) "what-have-you" will see house prices rise slowly over time - people would never lose money. It's the whole investing/gambling/assuming I'll make a mint that has skewed the whole thing

In your example I have no idea what the timescale of the "several years" was - it could have been 5 or it could have been 30 - but I'm assuming the point you are making is that people have always doubled-their-money?

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/

http://www.whatprice.co.uk/financial/housing-market/house-prices.html

well they will always rise in the long-term. But the recent hyper inflation is unprecendented - the real losers are first-time homebuyers without wealthy parents - not people who have a big pile land in their laps

[*Bob*]

My point is that 'property' as it is (of late) referred to, or 'land' as it was called for the several millenia prior to Sarah Beeney et al - has always been a much desired (the most desired) means of securing and increasing your wealth.

It's nothing new.

[*Bob*]

I consider IHT to be a perfectly reasonable way for the government to collect revenue and redistribute wealth - just as long as I can be exempted from it, please.

[SteveT]

Thats it *Bob* take it with you.

[SeanMacGabhann]

well, THAT'S more like it - why didn't you just say so?

I enjoyed that convo young *Bob* (funny name for a girl) - I'd buy you a drink but you don't do "social"

[tinagwee]

The woman in this case makes me a bit ashamed to be female. She should most definetly be the one to move out and take some responsibility for her own life and get a job! I despair, in this day and age.

If they had kids then whoever has the main responsibility for care of the kids should be in the family home but in this case with no kids and her being a sponge then why should the guy move out? If she stays I would like to think he wouldnt carry on covering the mortgage but would charge her rent. How do guys find these unscrupulous women and be willing to pay out for them like that. I didnt think it happened anymore. I'm obviously naive (but also got morals and am proud to be independant).

[*Bob*]

I thought I'd save the revelation of my unfettered greed until the very end.

Actually I'd quite like to be mummified with all of my cash and possessions - including Mrs *Bob*, of course - dead or alive.

[Asset]

Tinagwee, we only know one side of the story. she might have been giving him great BJs every night, that's worth a few quid.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Hahaha

[woodie]

Fun thread! when i was stripped of all that id achieved I only had the larry sanders show to keep me alive. that show was divorce to the marrow. Mind you x's kid comes for sleepovers with mine now. Funny they all get along so well.

weehoo. life!

[SteveT]

The guy should stop paying the mortgage,

they will be evicted,

place will be sold,

resultant cheque will be paid to him.

It is the most painful negotiation and will not get the maximum for the property,

but he will collect the balance in tact, and she will be out.

[Keef]

In to this one rather late, but agree with *bob* RE IHT. If someone has spent their lives paying tax, and has bought a house, and paid the mortgage, whatever the value when they bought it, it is theirs, and theirs to give away.

Now I know this will mean rich people getting richer, but they do that anyway, it's the average Joe who gets stuffed and has to sell the family home because they can't afford to keep it.

Like *bob*. I accept tax, and NI and all that, but I find IHT really out of order.

Aaaanyway, it's all been said, just thought I'd drop my 2p in.

[Brendan]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> 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)

Unfortunately I question all authority, always, and treat it as inherently suspect. This means when it comes to the government I assume the worst and expect it to redeem itself.

I can?t help it. This attitude is chiseled into my very soul.

So until the only purpose of government is to serve and the very concept of it being there to rule is as contemptible as slavery, I will remain a cynic.

[SeanMacGabhann]

And you should do this - well the questioning bit anyway - it's the fact that so many people don't that allows governments to become lazy... but it doesn't mean the concept isn't sound

[Alan Dale]

removed

[blinder999]

IHT wouldn't be an issue if the government had made any attempt to put the brakes on the ridiculous house price rises of the last decade, eg by taxing buy-to-let out of existence. But it's hardly surprising they didn't do anything about it, as many of them were building up their own extensive property portfolios.

[Keef]

Alan Dale Wrote:

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

> Anyone whos says IHT is unfair because 'I've

> already been taxed on that money' shows a

> fundamental lack of understanding of how they are

> taxed.

>

> VAT is paid out of taxed income, council tax the

> same, road tax, tax on ciggies, congestion charge,

> etc. etc. There is no rule that money should only

> be taxed once nor should there be.

>

> Furthermore house price gains are exempt from CGT

> on your principal private residence and therefore

> if you buy a house which increases in value to the

> point that it is above the IHT threshold then that

> gain is only ever taxed on death and then only

> partially so.

>

> There are good arguments against IHT but double

> taxation is not one of them.

All fair, but who said you get taxed twice? (I'm asking because I can't be arsed looking)

I know it's not being taxed twice, but the fact remains that if you've bought something in full, and you have the right to give it away tax free as a "living gift", why shouldn't it be given away tax free after death (or in the final years of life)?

[Bellenden Belle]

It strikes me this thread should now be called Divorce, Death and Taxes.... or ironically, Bellenden Belle's Bloody Awful Decade. (Everything is always about me, of course!)

Firstly, I can't believe some of the advice being offered here on divorcing someone. Stop paying mortgage; get her evicted; she should be ashamed to be a woman.... bloody hell, no wonder divorces are so messy when this is how we respond to them. So much anger surrounding a hypothetical question.

I think schools need to teach people the skills to deal with these kind of stressful situations.... so that people have more tricks up their sleeves than merely getting angry and bitter....

And who knows maybe I will eat my words... but so far my own separation (and I am in week three, so early days) is being handled with great dignity - and if it continues in that fashion I will consider it a very fine achievement indeed - to be able to part from someone I love (yes, present tense) without the need to annihilate them, or without sacrificing my own needs - both emotional and financial.

As for inheritance tax - I have written on this subject in great detail before - http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,39937,39987#msg-39987

Yes my arguments on both points are purely based on emotions .... I apologise to those needing something meatier or something more substantial to grapple with.

[*Bob*]

Alan Dale Wrote:

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

> VAT is paid out of taxed income, council tax the

> same, road tax, tax on ciggies, congestion charge,

> etc. etc. There is no rule that money should only

> be taxed once nor should there be.

> There are good arguments against IHT but double

> taxation is not one of them.

I disagree entirely.

VAT is paid on (some) goods and services that you choose to buy or use.

Fag tax on something you choose to smoke.

Road tax on choosing to drive a motor vehicle.

The congestion charge because you're too lazy to use the bus.

Stamp Duty because you choose to buy a house.

TV licence because you want to watch the goggler.

Inheritance Tax, however, is the only tax which befalls you simply for choosing to do absolutely nothing in particular, unless you count dying.

As I say, I'm not against IHT in principle at all, and no doubt my estate (whoever that may be.. naturally I change my will every year or so to keep people on their toes) - will pay my fair share. Fine. But it should be there to skim from the excess for the greater good, not penalising people simply because property happens to have become excessively expensive.

The imbalance has been corrected now anyway to a certain extent (though not for us living-in-sinners)

[Alan Dale]

removed

[*Bob*]

It's a combination of 'choice' and of what's 'fair and reasonable'.

I chose to buy a house and for that I had to pay Stamp Duty.

I believe income tax to be fair and reasonable because I live in country where the the collected taxes (are supposed to) go towards making it a good place to live. Incidentally, whilst I don't choose to pay income tax as such, I don't (for the most part) go out of my way to pay as little of it as is humanly possible without going to jail, as some self-employed people in my position do.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

There are all kinds of trust arrangements rich people set up to avoid all that paying inheritance tax malarky - it's only the middle classes who are 1st generation inheritance taxees that don't know their way around this stuff - I'll only charge ?100 per hour advice on the wonderful subject of protecting rich peoples dough if anyone wants it!

[Moos]

A graceful and well put post from BB.