Is inheritance tax fair?
For example in France it kicks in around at 134k gbp per child
Whereas in the UK it's on it's way to one million.
Should inheritance tax exist?
And if so at what point?
Whereas in the UK it's on it's way to one million.
Should inheritance tax exist?
And if so at what point?
Scroll to see replies
No, it makes absolutely no sense
Original post by Bill_Gates
For example in France it kicks in around at 134k gbp per child
Whereas in the UK it's on it's way to one million.
Should inheritance tax exist?
And if so at what point?
Whereas in the UK it's on it's way to one million.
Should inheritance tax exist?
And if so at what point?
no it shouldn't dont get the reason why it should no wonder why ppl pull scams...
Original post by Bill_Gates
For example in France it kicks in around at 134k gbp per child
Whereas in the UK it's on it's way to one million.
Should inheritance tax exist?
And if so at what point?
Whereas in the UK it's on it's way to one million.
Should inheritance tax exist?
And if so at what point?
I thought it was £325k? (for a single parent, double for married)
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Mayhem™
It shouldn't exist, and I don't see why it does or was ever introduced. The government just want more money, we might as well have window tax.
Original post by Blondie987
No, it makes absolutely no sense
Original post by HzlC
No, it's not fair at all. Robbing b*****ds!
Original post by Helpme.
no it shouldn't dont get the reason why it should no wonder why ppl pull scams...
No wonder most of France is a cesspit.
Yes, However only in instances of extreme wealth. I'm talking about in the billions. That amount of wealth is more about influence than privilege. The problem is that the billionaires who don't elect to give away half their wealth are in a position to establish a self-perpetuating family legacy of wealth and power. They are in no way elected into their position, they inherit it. That is a dangerous situation. Wealth in excess of one billion should be halved during the probate. Anything below one billion should not be taxed at all.
Original post by ckingalt
Yes, However only in instances of extreme wealth. I'm talking about in the billions. That amount of wealth is more about influence than privilege. The problem is that the billionaires who don't elect to give away half their wealth are in a position to establish a self-perpetuating family legacy of wealth and power. They are in no way elected into their position, they inherit it. That is a dangerous situation. Wealth in excess of one billion should be halved during the probate. Anything below one billion should not be taxed at all.
I'm assuming you mean the extra over one billion gets halved?
Original post by stirkee
I'm assuming you mean the extra over one billion gets halved?
correct
Original post by ckingalt
correct
Interesting, I'd say I agree with you. I think that people should be able to do what they want with their wealth when they die, with the exception of extreme wealth as you said. Quite where I'd draw the line I don't know, however.
Original post by ckingalt
Yes, However only in instances of extreme wealth. I'm talking about in the billions. That amount of wealth is more about influence than privilege. The problem is that the billionaires who don't elect to give away half their wealth are in a position to establish a self-perpetuating family legacy of wealth and power. They are in no way elected into their position, they inherit it. That is a dangerous situation. Wealth in excess of one billion should be halved during the probate. Anything below one billion should not be taxed at all.
You don't need a billion to gain influence. Some gain influence with brown envelopes full of thousands of pounds.
The intention behind the inheritance tax (and any wealth tax in general) seems to be quite noble but recently, it's been subverted by many wealthy people who, as it seems to be the case with most taxes levied upon them, are often able to consult with the best and organise their wealth so the taxman can't touch it.
The taxman, incidentally being the guy who gets regularly invited around for drinks and is sent Christmas cards and whatnot.
The taxman, incidentally being the guy who gets regularly invited around for drinks and is sent Christmas cards and whatnot.
Usually whenever someone moans about inheritence tax it's under the guise of how it's unfair to "pay tax twice", even though you're already taxed twice via income tax then VAT, yet no one bitches about this... not that being "taxed twice" is even a valid argument anyway, money is taxed multiple times as it works it's way through the economy. Another one is how it's robbery from the dead. I mean that second one is just laughable really... they are dead, it doesn't ****ing matter anymore and really it's the living recipients who are being taxed on income they haven't worked for.
You'd think that the general public, who claim to want a fairer society, would support a policy that taxes large amounts of unearned income of the recipients at what should be at a higher rate than income tax, which was money that was actually worked for.
The truth is, it comes down to the very self-servience that people bitch and moan about politicians for. People want their children to gain large amounts of money unearned by these children, or people want to receive large amounts of money unearned by them from their parents.
It's an absolute joke that IHT is lower than income tax.
Before any losers with nothing interesting to say post to tell me I'm just jealous:
1. Being jealous wouldn't invalidate my points.
2. I stand to inherit this unearned money in the future, so no, not really.
You'd think that the general public, who claim to want a fairer society, would support a policy that taxes large amounts of unearned income of the recipients at what should be at a higher rate than income tax, which was money that was actually worked for.
The truth is, it comes down to the very self-servience that people bitch and moan about politicians for. People want their children to gain large amounts of money unearned by these children, or people want to receive large amounts of money unearned by them from their parents.
It's an absolute joke that IHT is lower than income tax.
Before any losers with nothing interesting to say post to tell me I'm just jealous:
1. Being jealous wouldn't invalidate my points.
2. I stand to inherit this unearned money in the future, so no, not really.
(edited 8 years ago)
no - and it really angers me that the government thinks it has the right to tax raw wealth and life savings. people should be taxed as little nad in the best ways possible (income taxes - as flat as possible). to tax people by their wealth is essentially to tax them *twice*. once for the upkeep, and again for the ****s and gigs. it's bull****. if I work all my life and want to give my savings to my children, why shouldn't I have that full right of transfer? it's ridiculous and unbelievable! and with property/council taxes, if I want them to have my house and not worry about having to work too much, if they have to pay a raw amount of money (regardless of income) in those kinds of taxes, then eventually, the clock is ticking for their wealth - eventually, the government is going to have it all over time. that's contrasted with just an income tax. if you don't work or get an income, you shouldn't get taxed - period.
Original post by Bill_Gates
You don't need a billion to gain influence. Some gain influence with brown envelopes full of thousands of pounds.
I know, but if I think an arbitrary line needs to be drawn somewhere. I think one billion is just about right.
Inheritance is fundamentally anti-meritocratic. It incentivises fecklessness and idleness in one's offsprings. Why should some rely on handouts while others have to work for a living?
Original post by TheGuyReturns
Usually whenever someone moans about inheritence tax it's under the guise of how it's unfair to "pay tax twice", even though you're already taxed twice via income tax then VAT, yet no one bitches about this... not that being "taxed twice" is even a valid argument anyway, money is taxed multiple times as it works it's way through the economy. Another one is how it's robbery from the dead. I mean that second one is just laughable really... they are dead, it doesn't ****ing matter anymore and really it's the living recipients who are being taxed on income they haven't worked for.
You'd think that the general public, who claim to want a fairer society, would support a policy that taxes large amounts of unearned income of the recipients at what should be at a higher rate than income tax, which was money that was actually worked for.
The truth is, it comes down to the very self-servience that people bitch and moan about politicians for. People want their children to gain large amounts of money unearned by these children, or people want to receive large amounts of money unearned by them from their parents.
Before any losers with nothing interesting to say post to tell me I'm just jealous:
1. Being jealous wouldn't invalidate my points.
2. I stand to inherit this unearned money in the future, so no, not really.
You'd think that the general public, who claim to want a fairer society, would support a policy that taxes large amounts of unearned income of the recipients at what should be at a higher rate than income tax, which was money that was actually worked for.
The truth is, it comes down to the very self-servience that people bitch and moan about politicians for. People want their children to gain large amounts of money unearned by these children, or people want to receive large amounts of money unearned by them from their parents.
Before any losers with nothing interesting to say post to tell me I'm just jealous:
1. Being jealous wouldn't invalidate my points.
2. I stand to inherit this unearned money in the future, so no, not really.
Or, people don't want to see the inheritance theyve worked their arses off for for their children taxed at 40% becuase they're dead.
It's a stupid law with absolutely no logical reasoning behind it. It is simply a tax for dying.
I'm
Maybe if you work for a better living you can provide an inheritance for your children.
Yiu can't exactly say money breeds idleness, it's hardly like poor people can't be lazy too
Original post by Quantex
Inheritance is fundamentally anti-meritocratic. It incentivises fecklessness and idleness in one's offsprings. Why should some rely on handouts while others have to work for a living?
Maybe if you work for a better living you can provide an inheritance for your children.
Yiu can't exactly say money breeds idleness, it's hardly like poor people can't be lazy too
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 17 minutes ago
How I get an A in A-Level Business StudiesLast reply 1 hour ago
Jaguar (JLR) Degree apprenticeships 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 2 hours ago
Will an IVA cause my Civil Service pre employment check to fail?Last reply 2 hours ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 2 hours ago
My boyfriend left me because he said my breasts and butt were too smallTrending
Last reply 20 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 20 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
