Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Is it fair that people's families must pay tax to receive the estate of someone who has died? No. Well, I suppose the socialists will think it is. Any chance they can get to get their hands on someone else's money they'll grab.

    But it's not moral, so end it now.

    END INHERITANCE TAX.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by isaqyi)
    Is it fair that people's families must pay tax to receive the estate of someone who has died? No. Well, I suppose the socialists will think it is. Any chance they can get to get their hands on someone else's money they'll grab.

    But it's not moral, so end it now.

    END INHERITANCE TAX.
    End inheritance tax and the government will just have to bump up tax on other things to cover this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I see you've yet to realise all governments will take money where possible.

    I suppose you also think taxpayers' money is "our money".
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    Lol, no.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    On the one hand, you won't need the money any more when you die

    On the other hand, the government kind of has no claim to that money either.

    I'd like to see inheritance tax abolished, but that's not going to happen because the government needs all the money it can get right now
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    No inheritance tax is probably the fairest tax. Cut the top rate of tax instead. reward people from creting wealth, not inheriting it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    There's a problem with that.

    Every time the rich are taxed less than they were previously, the media outlets proclaim that money is being taken away from the poor and being given to the rich.
    This results in naive poor people (believe it or not, not all are naive - just most of them) only too willing to nod their heads vigorously before they turn to Milliband and ask him what to think?

    The chain reaction then results in a Labour majority next election.

    Therefore, in this country, the rich can never be taxed less than they already are - it's a political cyanide pill.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fibrebiz)
    There's a problem with that.

    Every time the rich are taxed less than they were previously, the media outlets proclaim that money is being taken away from the poor and being given to the rich.
    This results in naive poor people (believe it or not, not all are naive - just most of them) only too willing to nod their heads vigorously before they turn to Milliband and ask him what to think?

    The chain reaction then results in a Labour majority next election.

    Therefore, in this country, the rich can never be taxed less than they already are - it's a political cyanide pill.
    With the Western economic crisis, whoever was in the next government wouldn't last more than a term unless it's another coalition. Problem for Lib Dems is their leader made either a massively illogical move or, more likely, was looking out for himself (and perhaps was more Conservative than Lib Dem all along).

    Problem for the Conservatives is, when they finally do get a majority, they're expected to proceed with whichever tactic-they-drew-out-of-a-hat they used while campaigning (like how they targeted new, young, naive voters for the past few years).

    Unless they have a workable gimmick or a good charade, or an opposition led by a weak leader, they can't back it up.

    Just sayin'. Labour didn't get a majority because people didn't want to keep Brown. Now someone else, albiet the less handsome and lower vote-winning Milliband, is in charge, expect a downright landslide. Because the general public will vote against toff liar Cameron and lying butler Clegg.

    The circle of politics. What a difference an election win... er... draw makes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Testify!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    All in favour of 100% IHT.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It's not fair at all. That's like me saying "I see you're thinking of getting rid of something you don't need any more. Well, instead of giving your possession, something you bought with your money and is 100% yours, to someone else for free, I'm going to need you to give me some money. You can't give stuff away without paying me first".

    See how much sense inheritance tax makes? Sweet **** all.
    If my family leave me whatever then the government can shove their inheritance tax up their arse.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    No inheritance tax is probably the fairest tax. Cut the top rate of tax instead. reward people from creting wealth, not inheriting it.
    I agree that cutting the top rate of tax would be fairer than removing Inheritance Tax, but I wouldn't advocate either.
    I'd be happy to see the removal of the top rate of tax that was counterbalanced by an increase in Inheritance Tax though.

    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    It's not fair at all. That's like me saying "I see you're thinking of getting rid of something you don't need any more. Well, instead of giving your possession, something you bought with your money and is 100% yours, to someone else for free, I'm going to need you to give me some money. You can't give stuff away without paying me first".

    See how much sense inheritance tax makes? Sweet **** all.
    If my family leave me whatever then the government can shove their inheritance tax up their arse.
    How does it make sense that someone can make money from someone dying?
    I'm talking about a specific person/people rather than the populous as a whole.

    You should be happy that the inheritance tax isn't 100% like a lot of people would push for (I'm more of a 80% man myself) if you end up with some money after a relative dies.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)

    How does it make sense that someone can make money from someone dying?
    I'm talking about a specific person/people rather than the populous as a whole.
    So if I die then I'm not allowed to distribute the wealth I created amongst my children to make their lives more comfortable? It's my money that I earned and I'll do whatever the hell I like with it. Who are the government to get in the way of my dying wishes?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    How does it make sense that someone can make money from someone dying?
    I'm talking about a specific person/people rather than the populous as a whole.

    You should be happy that the inheritance tax isn't 100% like a lot of people would push for (I'm more of a 80% man myself) if you end up with some money after a relative dies.
    The money doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to whoever died, and if whoever died decides to give their money and whatever possessions they have to someone else then the government should have no say in it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    if inheritance tax doesn't exist we'll just see all assets gradually go to the richest families.

    I've played monopoly, I know this for sure.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    So if I die then I'm not allowed to distribute the wealth I created amongst my children to make their lives more comfortable? It's my money that I earned and I'll do whatever the hell I like with it. Who are the government to get in the way of my dying wishes?
    Money is a concept.
    I know, there's lovely paper that denotes "money" but "money" doesn't actually exist.
    So, without a universal (sort of) method of making fair trades, you have to trade items of wealth for other items that you deem to be of a similar value (say, a house that a builder builds for you, for perhaps 10 cars you somehow managed to acquire.) Money gets us around this difficult problem, as it breaks wealth down into smaller units (unless you'd like to maybe melt gold and use that as currency, along with all the pitfalls that offers.)
    The price for using this currency is that you submit to giving some of the currency you use to the issuer and regulator of this currency (we'll call them "the government") as a sort of commission. When you die, the issuer also takes some commission if you want to give some of the money to someone else. The issuer kindly waives this fee if you decide to give it to charity.

    Land is similar, but I concede, slightly different, as it can be said you "own" land. But the land it is on is part of the country, which has these crazy things called "rules." If you want to live in the country, you pretty much have to submit to them (I know, no fair right!?) In order to live in this country (and therefore use it's currency and services) you also have to pay a fee to exchange land in the country.

    I know, highly highly simplistic. Over simplistic in places, and plain wrong from a technical point of view in others but the point overall stands.
    FYI, in the last example, I'm all for letting people move a house to another plot of land and leaving the land where it stood to the government if they'd like to avoid IHT. I know it doesn't work that way currently, but it should.
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    The money doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to whoever died, and if whoever died decides to give their money and whatever possessions they have to someone else then the government should have no say in it.
    See my ramblings above.
    The possessions part I agree with, just not money and land.

    I should add also, I don't think it's fair that someone should profit from the death of a family member, as I don't really think it's fair that people should be given wealth that they haven't earned. I said 80% earlier just so saving money doesn't seem pointless. I can't really see how people think:

    A dies, I am related to A, therefore I deserve A's things.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    The possessions part I agree with, just not money and land.

    I should add also, I don't think it's fair that someone should profit from the death of a family member, as I don't really think it's fair that people should be given wealth that they haven't earned. I said 80% earlier just so saving money doesn't seem pointless. I can't really see how people think:

    A dies, I am related to A, therefore I deserve A's things.
    I'm inclined to agree with you, but that wasn't my point; I never said that a relation of the deceased should expect to be given the deceased's property, I said if the deceased gives someone (of their own accord) something of theirs then the government should have no say in it.
    If you wanted to give a friend of yours a football and I came along and said "Can't do that unless you give me money :naughty: " then you'd naturally be both confused and pissed.
    It's exactly the same principle, but instead of me asking for your friends money you have someone who studied Politics at University and therefore thinks that they are qualified to run the country taking your money.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    I'm inclined to agree with you, but that wasn't my point; I never said that a relation of the deceased should expect to be given the deceased's property, I said if the deceased gives someone (of their own accord) something of theirs then the government should have no say in it.
    If you wanted to give a friend of yours a football and I came along and said "Can't do that unless you give me money :naughty: " then you'd naturally be both confused and pissed.
    It's exactly the same principle, but instead of me asking for your friends money you have someone who studied Politics at University and therefore thinks that they are qualified to run the country taking your money.
    You do realise that analogy is a little off.
    It's more like my friend wanting to give me at least £325,000.

    Again, it's something that I can honestly see both arguments for, and I understand where you're coming from, but I don't see it in as either/or terms as perhaps you do.

    £325,000 is enough of a threshold to provide an excellent future for any dependent children one may have, or for anyone I should add. I don't think 40% above £325,000 is a lot to ask for really, I mean, on £1,000,000 you'd keep £730,000 which is still a lot, more than most people will ever see anyway. I don't think it's a legitimate gripe to have, although I understand it's the pure principle you don't agree with, which obviously, is perfectly understandable.

    EDIT: My apologies for twisting what you said, also.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ignorance abounds on here!

    The cretin who called IHT Labour's death tax might like to look up who was in government in 1986, the year IHT was introduced!
    The bloody Tories.

    There is no IHT on assets of £325000. A couple can arrange to leave double that. £650000.
    I support 100% IHT of all assets over that.

    Isn't £650000 enough to inherit?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Don't rich people avoid inheritance tax anyway?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.