The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

I agree
I agree strongly
Agree a lot.
I totally agree. Inheritance tax is just another way for the government to take money away from its citizens. The assets have already been taxed once - income tax, stamp duty, etc so to have them taxed again just because the ownership has changed seems highly unfair. People should be able to leave a legacy, to allow their next of kin to inherit all that they own, without the government taking a cut.
Disagree completely. We need taxation for out public services.

It's also vital for a meritocracy.
Reply 6
Original post by DeBruyne18
Disagree completely. We need taxation for out public services.

It's also vital for a meritocracy.


I'm with with you! And if you look at the legal terms of inheritance tax it barely affects smaller assets. Therefore the people that are dependent upon inheritances shouldn't be too badly affected. If I left lots of money behind I don't think I'd be against some of it going towards public services.
Reply 7
Disagree. It is a difficult one as I think there is a reasonable instinct to leave your kids something. And a family home is an emotional matter whatever your wealth. This said I think everyone should have to work for their living and inheritance tax is one of the levellers of the unfairly large financial inequality in the uk.
It tends to be avoided by those with the most wealth, and makes it even harder for the children to afford housing and less to spend in the wider economy. So either abolish it or set it at a low amount (eg 2%) over an amount like 1.5 million.
Original post by DeBruyne18
Disagree completely. We need taxation for out public services.

It's also vital for a meritocracy.


Original post by Zarek
Disagree. It is a difficult one as I think there is a reasonable instinct to leave your kids something. And a family home is an emotional matter whatever your wealth. This said I think everyone should have to work for their living and inheritance tax is one of the levellers of the unfairly large financial inequality in the uk.


However it's not so much of a leveller when there is an easy way to avoid inheritance tax. You can use 'gifts' to give your family members (or anyone you wish for that matter) a portion of their inheritance early and reduce your estate in order to pay less tax.
Reply 10
Original post by CatusStarbright
However it's not so much of a leveller when there is an easy way to avoid inheritance tax. You can use 'gifts' to give your family members (or anyone you wish for that matter) a portion of their inheritance early and reduce your estate in order to pay less tax.

Don't know the detail of this but believe there are some restrictions in terms of timing and amount of the gift. Certainly wouldn't be against a review of what is fair and reasonable.
Inheritance Tax is the most unfair of all taxes, and the one that makes the least sense.

You've paid tax on it in the first place, possibly several times over.

Consider a house:

A person has paid income tax and NI on their earnings to pay for the mortgage. They've paid stamp duty on the house itself. After they've died, why should their estate have to pay again so that a person can transfer their own property to whomsoever they wish?

We are talking about the rightful property of individuals, which the state is taking away to give to others. Why? Why was what they had taxed twice before not enough?

When gifts are made during the lifetime, the state does not benefit in anything like the same way - so why is it that death suddenly attracts these enormous taxes?
Original post by Rinsed
Agree 100%.

Income should be taxed once. The government shouldn't get another crack at your wallet just because you had the misfortune of dying.

It's not you who's paying though. It's people who are inheriting a huge amount of money that are paying.

If we want good schools and good public services we need to raise money and we won't do that by abolishing taxes.

Some people are lucky to be born into weka thy families, others aren't. Inheritance tax is a way of levelling the playing field just a little.

I would raise it, if anything.
Original post by Zarek
Don't know the detail of this but believe there are some restrictions in terms of timing and amount of the gift. Certainly wouldn't be against a review of what is fair and reasonable.


There are indeed restrictions, but if someone knows they are going to die or merely wants to create a safeguard then they can plan well in advance to make these gifts to avoid as much inheritance tax as possible. This certainly seems to make inheritance tax a little redundant and arguably therefore doesn't level the playing field, as only those who don't take advantage of these ways to get around it have to pay up more.
Original post by Trinculo
Inheritance Tax is the most unfair of all taxes, and the one that makes the least sense.

You've paid tax on it in the first place, possibly several times over.

Consider a house:

A person has paid income tax and NI on their earnings to pay for the mortgage. They've paid stamp duty on the house itself. After they've died, why should their estate have to pay again so that a person can transfer their own property to whomsoever they wish?

We are talking about the rightful property of individuals, which the state is taking away to give to others. Why? Why was what they had taxed twice before not enough?

When gifts are made during the lifetime, the state does not benefit in anything like the same way - so why is it that death suddenly attracts these enormous taxes?

You haven't paid anything on it. The people who owned it before you did.

You're getting a huge amount of money or assets passed on to you. It's only right and fair that you pay tax on it.
Agree. But I don't think people should be allowed to hide their wealth so that the state has to pay to take care of them in old age. If you have a house you wanted to leave to your kids but have to go into a care home, I think it perfectly reasonable that you should have to sell your house to pay for your care.
Original post by DeBruyne18
You haven't paid anything on it. The people who owned it before you did.

You're getting a huge amount of money or assets passed on to you. It's only right and fair that you pay tax on it.


You don't pay anything on it. The estate does.

Why is it fair and right to pay tax on gifts? It's nobody's business how lawful property is transferred at will.

If I give my house to some nonsense charity which benefits almost no-one, the state does not benefit in any way from IHT. If I give my house away as a gift while I am alive, there's the stamp duty but that's about it.

So all of a sudden, just because I'm dead, everything changes?

It makes no sense whatsoever, and is completely contrary to the concepts of free will and private property.
Reply 17
Original post by CatusStarbright
There are indeed restrictions, but if someone knows they are going to die or merely wants to create a safeguard then they can plan well in advance to make these gifts to avoid as much inheritance tax as possible. This certainly seems to make inheritance tax a little redundant and arguably therefore doesn't level the playing field, as only those who don't take advantage of these ways to get around it have to pay up more.

Mind you, it potentially means you have to give your little blighters your wealth well before youre certain you want to lose control of it. It would be easily solved too by a sensible capital gains tax on gifts.
Agree - it is immoral as its a tax on death. As well as this, its taxing things that have already been taxed!
Original post by Zarek
Mind you, it potentially means you have to give your little blighters your wealth well before youre certain you want to lose control of it. It would be easily solved too by a sensible capital gains tax on gifts.


Or simply the abolition of inheritance tax.

Latest

Trending

Trending