The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 100
Parents have no right to give their properties to their children when they die?
thegreatstupendo
Currently, inheritance tax stands at 40% on all the deceased's estate over £285,000. This allows people who have done no work, or anything else to deserve it, to profit purely because their parents had money.

How is it just that some people stand to gain a large windfall purely because of who they are, and who they were born to.

If inheritance tax was reformed, it would create a level playing field between people if all classes and backgrounds, making the UK a fairer, more equal society.

I propose that inheritance tax be increased to 100%, with the exception of one family house (up to a certain value, and that has been in the family for a certain number of years, as yet undecided).

As well as encouraging equality among the people of the UK, it would also allow the government to decrease otgher taxes, such as income tax, in order to encourage hard work among the population; preciesly the opposite of what inheritance tax is doing now.

Anyone agree?


I don't agree at all, what a ridiculous proposal to increase it to 100%. It is my right to decide what I wish to do with my money that I have earned during my lifetime after I die. Have you thought about the dramatic consequences this proposal would have on peoples spending habits? What incentive is there to be sensible and rational with your money during your lifetime if you know that everything you have acquired will be stripped off you as soon as you die?
thegreatstupendo
Currently, inheritance tax stands at 40% on all the deceased's estate over £285,000. This allows people who have done no work, or anything else to deserve it, to profit purely because their parents had money.

How is it just that some people stand to gain a large windfall purely because of who they are, and who they were born to.

If inheritance tax was reformed, it would create a level playing field between people if all classes and backgrounds, making the UK a fairer, more equal society.

I propose that inheritance tax be increased to 100%, with the exception of one family house (up to a certain value, and that has been in the family for a certain number of years, as yet undecided).

As well as encouraging equality among the people of the UK, it would also allow the government to decrease otgher taxes, such as income tax, in order to encourage hard work among the population; preciesly the opposite of what inheritance tax is doing now.

Anyone agree?


Hammer, sickle, little red flag.... property is theft... why don't we just let the state own everything?

:rolleyes:
I think inheritance tax is wrong, because taxing it is taxing the income twice. One by the person that earnt it and then again by the person that inherited it.

The problem is we now need inheritance tax because it contributes alot. Personally i think we should keep it but make the family home non-taxable. So that people can pass on their home and everything after that (assets) becomes taxable.

I think its wrong that when a person inherits their families only house they get a massive great tax bill for it. inheritance tax was meant to help social mobility by taxing an amount of the asset rich. Not deprive "ordinary people" of their family home.
Reply 104
ChemistBoy
Hammer, sickle, little red flag.... property is theft... why don't we just let the state own everything?

:rolleyes:


In fact, why don't we put all companies into the hands of the state, large and small, and pay 100% tax? That way, the state can simply give out coupons for all we need - food coupons, health coupons, education coupons, holiday coupons etc.
Reply 105
Zebedee
I think inheritance tax is wrong, because taxing it is taxing the income twice. One by the person that earnt it and then again by the person that inherited it.

The problem is we now need inheritance tax because it contributes alot. Personally i think we should keep it but make the family home non-taxable. So that people can pass on their home and everything after that (assets) becomes taxable.

I think its wrong that when a person inherits their families only house they get a massive great tax bill for it. inheritance tax was meant to help social mobility by taxing an amount of the asset rich. Not deprive "ordinary people" of their family home.


In most cases the tax bill isn't great, you need to inherit large amounts of money for it to really sting your wallet. And I already explained that it isn't income that has been taxed twice.
x.narb.x
In most cases the tax bill isn't great, you need to inherit large amounts of money for it to really sting your wallet. And I already explained that it isn't income that has been taxed twice.


Yes it is. A £400,000 house is not an unusual inheritence, considering how most old people own their homes and that house prices have risen so much. The threshold has not risen fast enough, its £240,000 i believe. So on that house you would have to pay 0.4*160,000 = £40,000 tax bill to Mr Gordan Brown.

That is a large sum to most people and would normally require selling of the home to raise the money to pay the tax bill. So inheritence tax is actually making people lose their homes they IMO should have every right too.
Zebedee
The problem is we now need inheritance tax because it contributes alot.


If you're suggesting it contributes 'a lot' to the government, your wrong. It contributes less than 1% to the annual budget.

Hammer, sickle, little red flag.... property is theft... why don't we just let the state own everything?


"Property is theft" - Proudhon

He also said:

"Propety is freedom" - Proudhon
Well, then you could just have people giving all their property away as gifts to their children on the death bed instead, or are you going to ban those too? =.=''
With taper relief but those gifts fill up the nil rate band anyway. It's disgraceful.
x.narb.x
In most cases the tax bill isn't great, you need to inherit large amounts of money for it to really sting your wallet. And I already explained that it isn't income that has been taxed twice.


No you didn't, you wrote some stuff that didn't make sense.
Reply 112
....buy house at 200k, due to property price inflation it rises to 300k, you get taxed on it, that money hasn't been taxed already.
Reply 113
x.narb.x
....buy house at 200k, due to property price inflation it rises to 300k, you get taxed on it, that money hasn't been taxed already.


Any reason why it should be?
Reply 114
Zebedee
I think inheritance tax is wrong, because taxing it is taxing the income twice. One by the person that earnt it and then again by the person that inherited it.

The problem is we now need inheritance tax because it contributes alot. Personally i think we should keep it but make the family home non-taxable. So that people can pass on their home and everything after that (assets) becomes taxable.

I think its wrong that when a person inherits their families only house they get a massive great tax bill for it. inheritance tax was meant to help social mobility by taxing an amount of the asset rich. Not deprive "ordinary people" of their family home.


was just responding to that comment...
Reply 115
x.narb.x
....buy house at 200k, due to property price inflation it rises to 300k, you get taxed on it, that money hasn't been taxed already.


That would be an argument for having capital gains tax on all property, not for taxing the whole 300k on death, especailly when 2/3 has been earned, and so already taxed.
Well really, why should the government have rights to any ones property whether they're alive or dead?
Reply 117
I think Inheritance Tax is set far too low. It is catching working and middle class people for whom it was never intended.
Reply 118
Mum
I think Inheritance Tax is set far too low. It is catching working and middle class people for whom it was never intended.


I presume you mean the threshold, not the rate?
Reply 119
ol3
That would be an argument for having capital gains tax on all property, not for taxing the whole 300k on death, especailly when 2/3 has been earned, and so already taxed.


The tax is on anything OVER 280k(or whatever the limit is) so in that scenario none of it is being taxed twice..

Latest

Trending

Trending