Go to first unread
Back
to top
Inheritance tax Watch
The threshold is £325,000 and any amount above that is taxed at 40%. The threshold seems too low to me. I come from a working class background and wouldn’t inherit enough to be taxed so it doesn’t affect me personally. However I think if somebody has earned their money by working hard and has chosen to save a lot rather than buy lots of expensive things, they should be allowed to leave that money to who they want.
Obviously some people inherit extremely large amounts of money and the morally right thing to do would be to give some to those in need. I just think the threshold should be higher as £325,000+ could be attained through hard work alone and choosing to save rather than buying expensive things and travelling lots. Or perhaps it would be best to have increasing tax bands?
I’m not sure I’m not very well educated on this issue, it wasn’t that long ago I found out inheritance tax exists. Just want to know peoples thoughts on it..
Obviously some people inherit extremely large amounts of money and the morally right thing to do would be to give some to those in need. I just think the threshold should be higher as £325,000+ could be attained through hard work alone and choosing to save rather than buying expensive things and travelling lots. Or perhaps it would be best to have increasing tax bands?
I’m not sure I’m not very well educated on this issue, it wasn’t that long ago I found out inheritance tax exists. Just want to know peoples thoughts on it..
1
reply
Report
#3
I think you’re being ridiculous. I’d prefer if the wealth was completely seized but taxing it at 40% at a threshold of £325,000 is incredibly lenient. And no wealth is attained through hard work alone . It’s often the opposite
0
reply
Report
#4
Of all the taxes, it is pretty easy to avoid with a bit of forward planning. But like most taxes, those with wealth and the ability to seek expensive advice pay less than those who just plod life.
0
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by Emiluu)
Or perhaps it would be best to have increasing tax bands?
I’m not sure I’m not very well educated on this issue, it wasn’t that long ago I found out inheritance tax exists. Just want to know peoples thoughts on it..
Or perhaps it would be best to have increasing tax bands?
I’m not sure I’m not very well educated on this issue, it wasn’t that long ago I found out inheritance tax exists. Just want to know peoples thoughts on it..
in terms of comparisons around the world of IHT policy, few countries have 40% IHT. Switzerland is generally below 8ish% (depends on city of residence) as long as the beneficiary is the children of the deceased, even the USA in most states the tax rate is similar or more favourable than 10% tax rate as long as the estate stays in the bloodline. Australia and Canada do not have IHT as far as I can remember. It is widely (globally) considered an immoral tax as it is double taxation. Probably the UK/Japan have the highest rates.
Last edited by errrr99; 1 month ago
1
reply
(Original post by errrr99)
remember the £325k is for one person (i.e. a single/divorced person) as opposed to a couple, and it applies to any asset i.e. cash/land/2ndhome/whatever...whereas in 2015 it was declared that it would be lifted to £500k per person from April 2020 onwards as long as the asset in question is the main residence, and the beneficiaries are the children of the person in question.
in terms of comparisons around the world of IHT policy, few countries have 40% IHT. Switzerland is generally below 8ish% (depends on city of residence) as long as the beneficiary is the children of the deceased, even the USA in most states the tax rate is similar or more favourable than 10% tax rate as long as the estate stays in the bloodline. Australia and Canada do not have IHT as far as I can remember. It is widely (globally) considered an immoral tax as it is double taxation. Probably the UK/Japan have the highest rates.
remember the £325k is for one person (i.e. a single/divorced person) as opposed to a couple, and it applies to any asset i.e. cash/land/2ndhome/whatever...whereas in 2015 it was declared that it would be lifted to £500k per person from April 2020 onwards as long as the asset in question is the main residence, and the beneficiaries are the children of the person in question.
in terms of comparisons around the world of IHT policy, few countries have 40% IHT. Switzerland is generally below 8ish% (depends on city of residence) as long as the beneficiary is the children of the deceased, even the USA in most states the tax rate is similar or more favourable than 10% tax rate as long as the estate stays in the bloodline. Australia and Canada do not have IHT as far as I can remember. It is widely (globally) considered an immoral tax as it is double taxation. Probably the UK/Japan have the highest rates.
0
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by Emiluu)
The threshold is £325,000 and any amount above that is taxed at 40%. The threshold seems too low to me. I come from a working class background and wouldn’t inherit enough to be taxed so it doesn’t affect me personally. However I think if somebody has earned their money by working hard and has chosen to save a lot rather than buy lots of expensive things, they should be allowed to leave that money to who they want.
Obviously some people inherit extremely large amounts of money and the morally right thing to do would be to give some to those in need. I just think the threshold should be higher as £325,000+ could be attained through hard work alone and choosing to save rather than buying expensive things and travelling lots. Or perhaps it would be best to have increasing tax bands?
I’m not sure I’m not very well educated on this issue, it wasn’t that long ago I found out inheritance tax exists. Just want to know peoples thoughts on it..
The threshold is £325,000 and any amount above that is taxed at 40%. The threshold seems too low to me. I come from a working class background and wouldn’t inherit enough to be taxed so it doesn’t affect me personally. However I think if somebody has earned their money by working hard and has chosen to save a lot rather than buy lots of expensive things, they should be allowed to leave that money to who they want.
Obviously some people inherit extremely large amounts of money and the morally right thing to do would be to give some to those in need. I just think the threshold should be higher as £325,000+ could be attained through hard work alone and choosing to save rather than buying expensive things and travelling lots. Or perhaps it would be best to have increasing tax bands?
I’m not sure I’m not very well educated on this issue, it wasn’t that long ago I found out inheritance tax exists. Just want to know peoples thoughts on it..
In the US, federal estate tax doesn't kick-in until $11.4m.
I'd prefer no inheritance tax, or a much higher threshold. We do need to ensure equal opportunities though.
1
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by errrr99)
remember the £325k is for one person (i.e. a single/divorced person) as opposed to a couple
remember the £325k is for one person (i.e. a single/divorced person) as opposed to a couple
I don't like the additional allowance for the family home, as it encourages single people to live in houses far bigger than they need.
0
reply
Report
#9
I disagree with both the current uk threshold and taxation rate levels.
The latter is far too high, the former far too low.
Taxing people during their lifetimes is a necessary inconvenience/evil, depending on perspective.
But taxing the personal estates of deceased persons is in a totally different league.
Adults should be able to freely gift their cash, property, shares, organs and anything else belonging to them to a person/persons/pet/organisation of their own choosing- without worrying about their estates/executors being hammered by inheritance tax demands.
Yes, some savvy people do employ trust funds, creative estate planning and tax avoidance strategies to minimise anticipated inheritance tax liability.
Even the Sheriff of Nottingham and Robin Hood didn't stoop as low as attempting to rob the dead by means of levying exorbitant tax demands.
The latter is far too high, the former far too low.
Taxing people during their lifetimes is a necessary inconvenience/evil, depending on perspective.
But taxing the personal estates of deceased persons is in a totally different league.
Adults should be able to freely gift their cash, property, shares, organs and anything else belonging to them to a person/persons/pet/organisation of their own choosing- without worrying about their estates/executors being hammered by inheritance tax demands.
Yes, some savvy people do employ trust funds, creative estate planning and tax avoidance strategies to minimise anticipated inheritance tax liability.
Even the Sheriff of Nottingham and Robin Hood didn't stoop as low as attempting to rob the dead by means of levying exorbitant tax demands.
2
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by RogerOxon)
Which doesn't help that much unless the first to die has enough to leave assets to the children, rather than their spouse. It's difficult to leave a share of the family home if the surviving spouse continues to live there, as they gain a benefit form it.
Which doesn't help that much unless the first to die has enough to leave assets to the children, rather than their spouse. It's difficult to leave a share of the family home if the surviving spouse continues to live there, as they gain a benefit form it.
if the dead spouse left a will to dis-inherit the surviving spouse, that could be challenged in the courts
1
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by cadaanshaydaan)
I’d prefer if the wealth was completely seized
I’d prefer if the wealth was completely seized
3
reply
Report
#12
(Original post by RogerOxon)
I don't like the additional allowance for the family home, as it encourages single people to live in houses far bigger than they need.
I don't like the additional allowance for the family home, as it encourages single people to live in houses far bigger than they need.
The additional nil-rate band will also be available when a person downsizes or ceases to own a home on or after 8 July 2015 and assets of an equivalent value, up to the value of the additional nil-rate band, are passed on death to direct descendants.
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-nil-rate-band
0
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by ByEeek)
Of all the taxes, it is pretty easy to avoid with a bit of forward planning. But like most taxes, those with wealth and the ability to seek expensive advice pay less than those who just plod life.
Of all the taxes, it is pretty easy to avoid with a bit of forward planning. But like most taxes, those with wealth and the ability to seek expensive advice pay less than those who just plod life.
My dad even gifted his flat to my sister and I about 10 years ago so that we legally own it not him, all in the hope of us not being heavily taxed on it when we sell the property after his death. But guess what, even after taking advice from a tax lawyer - we will be
0
reply
Report
#14
Don't think it should be abolished and don't agree with a huge increase. People have a right to what they have earned and to pass that on to their families but we've all got to pay for services and this is one way to do it, taking a small amount from someone who can afford to lose to give it to someone who cannot is the right way in my opinion.
0
reply
Report
#15
I mean I think the middle class get hit the most by IHT — the multi millionaires (talking £5m+) can probably employ expensive wealth management companies to minimise taxes etc. If your total net worth at death is £500k, £175k is taxed at 40%, meaning the total inheritance is £405k — £95,000 paid in taxes!! I don’t know how a middle class individual who went to university, worked hard to provide a good life for their family and paid higher taxes when they were living should have to lose out on 95k when they die, simply because they worked a bit harder than the average person 😒
0
reply
Report
#16
(Original post by Pulkitmal2001)
I mean I think the middle class get hit the most by IHT — the multi millionaires (talking £5m+) can probably employ expensive wealth management companies to minimise taxes etc. If your total net worth at death is £500k, £175k is taxed at 40%, meaning the total inheritance is £405k — £95,000 paid in taxes!! I don’t know how a middle class individual who went to university, worked hard to provide a good life for their family and paid higher taxes when they were living should have to lose out on 95k when they die, simply because they worked a bit harder than the average person 😒
I mean I think the middle class get hit the most by IHT — the multi millionaires (talking £5m+) can probably employ expensive wealth management companies to minimise taxes etc. If your total net worth at death is £500k, £175k is taxed at 40%, meaning the total inheritance is £405k — £95,000 paid in taxes!! I don’t know how a middle class individual who went to university, worked hard to provide a good life for their family and paid higher taxes when they were living should have to lose out on 95k when they die, simply because they worked a bit harder than the average person 😒
Firstly, an inheritance tax does not make the person who earned the money 'lose out' because they are dead. The person who loses out is the person who inherits it, who has not earned the money.
Secondly, wealth is not always an indication of hard work. Excluding those who are born into wealth and privilege. Let us deal with people who actually work for their wealth. It seems dishonest to suggest that a miner who does backbreaking labour for a pittance is any less hardworking than a stockbroker who earns 100 times more than him.
0
reply
Report
#17
(Original post by tashkent46)
Secondly, wealth is not always an indication of hard work. Excluding those who are born into wealth and privilege. Let us deal with people who actually work for their wealth. It seems dishonest to suggest that a miner who does backbreaking labour for a pittance is any less hardworking than a stockbroker who earns 100 times more than him.
Secondly, wealth is not always an indication of hard work. Excluding those who are born into wealth and privilege. Let us deal with people who actually work for their wealth. It seems dishonest to suggest that a miner who does backbreaking labour for a pittance is any less hardworking than a stockbroker who earns 100 times more than him.
1
reply
Report
#18
(Original post by Good bloke)
No, because the allowance applies to any cash held as a result of selling the home, or to assets acquired using cash which was sourced from a home sale.
The additional nil-rate band will also be available when a person downsizes or ceases to own a home on or after 8 July 2015 and assets of an equivalent value, up to the value of the additional nil-rate band, are passed on death to direct descendants.
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-nil-rate-band
No, because the allowance applies to any cash held as a result of selling the home, or to assets acquired using cash which was sourced from a home sale.
The additional nil-rate band will also be available when a person downsizes or ceases to own a home on or after 8 July 2015 and assets of an equivalent value, up to the value of the additional nil-rate band, are passed on death to direct descendants.
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-nil-rate-band
0
reply
Report
#19
(Original post by tashkent46)
I would like to say two things.
Firstly, an inheritance tax does not make the person who earned the money 'lose out' because they are dead. The person who loses out is the person who inherits it, who has not earned the money.
Secondly, wealth is not always an indication of hard work. Excluding those who are born into wealth and privilege. Let us deal with people who actually work for their wealth. It seems dishonest to suggest that a miner who does backbreaking labour for a pittance is any less hardworking than a stockbroker who earns 100 times more than him.
I would like to say two things.
Firstly, an inheritance tax does not make the person who earned the money 'lose out' because they are dead. The person who loses out is the person who inherits it, who has not earned the money.
Secondly, wealth is not always an indication of hard work. Excluding those who are born into wealth and privilege. Let us deal with people who actually work for their wealth. It seems dishonest to suggest that a miner who does backbreaking labour for a pittance is any less hardworking than a stockbroker who earns 100 times more than him.
One major reason is that the welfare system in the uk is severely flawed. The amount of people taking advantage of it is insane — leaving those genuinely in need of welfare support facing continuous cuts in a world where the price of everything is continuously going up. Frankly, I don’t know where our taxes go — every single public sector has had major cuts over the past decade.
0
reply
Report
#20
(Original post by cadaanshaydaan)
I think you’re being ridiculous. I’d prefer if the wealth was completely seized but taxing it at 40% at a threshold of £325,000 is incredibly lenient. And no wealth is attained through hard work alone . It’s often the opposite
I think you’re being ridiculous. I’d prefer if the wealth was completely seized but taxing it at 40% at a threshold of £325,000 is incredibly lenient. And no wealth is attained through hard work alone . It’s often the opposite
1
reply
X
Quick Reply
