Inheritance tax - Unmarried Siblings living together in the same residence?
Posted by: u5227470736789439 on 07 May 2008
Inheritance tax - Unmarried Siblings living together in the same residence?
Given the small numbers involved and the great benefit it would give to the survivor once one dies, would it not be a very good change to the Law to allow for the Inheritance Tax to be deferred till the death of the survivor?
The Government is currently opposing such a move, and I cannot see any good reason why, especially given the rights that are given to married couple and those in Civil Partnerships.
Does anyone here have a view?
George
Given the small numbers involved and the great benefit it would give to the survivor once one dies, would it not be a very good change to the Law to allow for the Inheritance Tax to be deferred till the death of the survivor?
The Government is currently opposing such a move, and I cannot see any good reason why, especially given the rights that are given to married couple and those in Civil Partnerships.
Does anyone here have a view?
George
Posted on: 09 May 2008 by u5227470736789439
I will firmly venture to say that it would be right to allow for such a deferment. George
Posted on: 10 May 2008 by djftw
Lol, sorry George,
I would entirely agree with you, in fact I would abolish inheritance tax on non-fluid assets altogether. The idea that someone might have to sell a family home or heirloom because they can't afford to pay the treasury more tax, after the income that bought the thing in the first place had already been taxed, is simply abhorrent to me.
Mind you, inheritance tax is by far the most ludicrous tax we have. Someone in another thread said "what have my children done to deserve it [their money]?", but by contrast I would say what have the government done to deserve it? My property is mine, the government have taken their 40% of my labours, I should be able to do what I want with my remaining 60%, and if I choose to keep some of it to be passed to my children (or anyone else for that matter) upon my death why is the government entitled to another cut? I very much doubt that the state will pay for my funeral, and I will no doubt have died as a result of NHS incompetence as a direct result of the government's poorly thought out spending of my tax money! If I really wanted them to waste the rest of it for me I could make the Crown the beneficiary of my will!
"Property is theft" the Communists used to shout. I would disagree; theft is taking almost half my income, charging me 17.5% every time I buy something and even more when I buy alcohol or diesel, and then spending it on bureaucrats and ugly buildings (Hollyrood, Millennium Dome) whilst both my girlfriend's mother and then step-father die unnecessarily in NHS "Hospitals", and a 23 year old friend of mine is found dead on her bathroom floor after being sent home by a GP that can't diagnose appendicitis!
Sorry, went off on a bit of a rant there!!!
Regards,
Dom
I would entirely agree with you, in fact I would abolish inheritance tax on non-fluid assets altogether. The idea that someone might have to sell a family home or heirloom because they can't afford to pay the treasury more tax, after the income that bought the thing in the first place had already been taxed, is simply abhorrent to me.
Mind you, inheritance tax is by far the most ludicrous tax we have. Someone in another thread said "what have my children done to deserve it [their money]?", but by contrast I would say what have the government done to deserve it? My property is mine, the government have taken their 40% of my labours, I should be able to do what I want with my remaining 60%, and if I choose to keep some of it to be passed to my children (or anyone else for that matter) upon my death why is the government entitled to another cut? I very much doubt that the state will pay for my funeral, and I will no doubt have died as a result of NHS incompetence as a direct result of the government's poorly thought out spending of my tax money! If I really wanted them to waste the rest of it for me I could make the Crown the beneficiary of my will!
"Property is theft" the Communists used to shout. I would disagree; theft is taking almost half my income, charging me 17.5% every time I buy something and even more when I buy alcohol or diesel, and then spending it on bureaucrats and ugly buildings (Hollyrood, Millennium Dome) whilst both my girlfriend's mother and then step-father die unnecessarily in NHS "Hospitals", and a 23 year old friend of mine is found dead on her bathroom floor after being sent home by a GP that can't diagnose appendicitis!
Sorry, went off on a bit of a rant there!!!
Regards,
Dom
Posted on: 10 May 2008 by 555
I've already ranted about IHT,
so I'll just add one more example of the unfair status quo.
A purely theoretical illustration:
Any investments in AIM listed equities are exempt from IHT.
Lord Loads is looking unwell & likely to depart this mortal coil.
He or his family move LL's liquid assets in to AIM invests before he breaths his last so no IHT is payable. There's no limit to this allowance, so if LL had £1/2 million,
£1m or £100m in the bank no IHT to pay as long as the cash was invested in time!
Granny CD555 owns a house she bought in 1951 for £200.
It's now worth £550K, so when she pops her clogs the estate has a IHT bill of £95200.
Of course Granny can't invest in AIM equities from her bungalow; is that fair?
so I'll just add one more example of the unfair status quo.
A purely theoretical illustration:
Any investments in AIM listed equities are exempt from IHT.
Lord Loads is looking unwell & likely to depart this mortal coil.
He or his family move LL's liquid assets in to AIM invests before he breaths his last so no IHT is payable. There's no limit to this allowance, so if LL had £1/2 million,
£1m or £100m in the bank no IHT to pay as long as the cash was invested in time!
Granny CD555 owns a house she bought in 1951 for £200.
It's now worth £550K, so when she pops her clogs the estate has a IHT bill of £95200.
Of course Granny can't invest in AIM equities from her bungalow; is that fair?
Posted on: 10 May 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear John,
What is "AIM" please?
George
What is "AIM" please?
George
Posted on: 10 May 2008 by 555
Hi George
Alternative Investment Market,
which is the London Stock Exchange's international market for smaller growing companies.
BTW absolutely agree with your point about unmarried siblings & IHT.
Cheers - John
Alternative Investment Market,
which is the London Stock Exchange's international market for smaller growing companies.
BTW absolutely agree with your point about unmarried siblings & IHT.
Cheers - John
Posted on: 10 May 2008 by djftw
I do agree that the AIM IHT situation is completely unfair, but then if that option wasn't there the money would most likely be invested overseas or in tax havens to escape IHT rather than where it is at least having some small benefit on the British economy. So you can't really win, unless you scrap IHT and tax something else instead to recover the revenue... or not spend so much money on white elephants...
Posted on: 10 May 2008 by djftw
A lot of people have been prattling on about overpopulation. How about Birth Tax!!! 
Posted on: 10 May 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Dom,
Though it might seem a soft idea, it is no less soft in the head than Inheritance Tax!
George
Though it might seem a soft idea, it is no less soft in the head than Inheritance Tax!
George
Posted on: 10 May 2008 by djftw
Indeed! Mind you, I suspect the social effects would be far more beneficial, might actually make people consider things properly before they have children! And of course it would be much fairer, with the availability of contraception nowadays becoming pregnant is a choice, well it always was, but wearing a condom or making your partner wear one is a far easier than deciding to be abstinent! Death rarely is by choice!
Bit unfair on the Catholics though, not that I know any who stick rigidly to the Church's position on contraception!
Bit unfair on the Catholics though, not that I know any who stick rigidly to the Church's position on contraception!
Posted on: 10 May 2008 by KenM
Dom,
You appear to be childless or have a very small family. Who will provide your pension and care when you grow old? We have a changing demographic in the UK but our problem is that we will have a large population of older folks being supported by taxes earned by a shrinking number of workers.
May I also surmise that the Daily Mail might be your newspaper of choice? It is only Mail readers who apparently pay tax on our incomes at 40%. The rest of us scroungers have personal allowances and a standard rate tax band.
Complaining about the state of the National Health Service while wanting to pay lower taxes is illogical. Just as in any large organisation, there are efficiencies to be made but in the NHS, most of these have the potential to increase tisk to patients. As someone or other once remarked "There is no such thing as a free lunch".
George,
Regarding the original topic of this thread, I agree completely with your position. Deferral would be the ideal solution.
Regards,
Ken
You appear to be childless or have a very small family. Who will provide your pension and care when you grow old? We have a changing demographic in the UK but our problem is that we will have a large population of older folks being supported by taxes earned by a shrinking number of workers.
May I also surmise that the Daily Mail might be your newspaper of choice? It is only Mail readers who apparently pay tax on our incomes at 40%. The rest of us scroungers have personal allowances and a standard rate tax band.
Complaining about the state of the National Health Service while wanting to pay lower taxes is illogical. Just as in any large organisation, there are efficiencies to be made but in the NHS, most of these have the potential to increase tisk to patients. As someone or other once remarked "There is no such thing as a free lunch".
George,
Regarding the original topic of this thread, I agree completely with your position. Deferral would be the ideal solution.
Regards,
Ken
Posted on: 10 May 2008 by 555
I can see the appeal of a birth tax in terms of overpopulation & taking the strain off the planet, but it fails what is IMHO the 1st test of a fair tax;
it doesn't take into account the ability to pay.
In fact it almost sounds like a junior Poll Tax!
How could a birth tax work so it's fair?
I hear what you're saying djftw, but the benefit of this is so minimal:
AIM is international, so not just UK companies.
The IHT rule is that investments in AIM equities on the day of departure are exempt.
This means when Lord Loads looks unwell his £millions go into AIM.
Day after LL expires the AIM 'investment' can be cashed in with no IHT to pay.
KenM
I was a 40% tax payer for over 20 years,
but I would rather swap my CD555 for a Linn CDP than read/buy a copy of the Daily Mail!
I find its contents at least as offensive as the right wing tabloids.
IMHO the failure of the NHS to significantly improve from the extra money is vast management structures, PFI making shareholders rich, etc. Just look at the enormous pay-off the head of the Maidstone trust received when she resigned the days before the damning report re: all the deaths caused by C diff.
it doesn't take into account the ability to pay.
In fact it almost sounds like a junior Poll Tax!
How could a birth tax work so it's fair?
quote:
I do agree that the AIM IHT situation is completely unfair, but then if that option wasn't there the money would most likely be invested overseas or in tax havens to escape IHT rather than where it is at least having some small benefit on the British economy.
I hear what you're saying djftw, but the benefit of this is so minimal:
AIM is international, so not just UK companies.
The IHT rule is that investments in AIM equities on the day of departure are exempt.
This means when Lord Loads looks unwell his £millions go into AIM.
Day after LL expires the AIM 'investment' can be cashed in with no IHT to pay.
KenM
I was a 40% tax payer for over 20 years,
but I would rather swap my CD555 for a Linn CDP than read/buy a copy of the Daily Mail!
I find its contents at least as offensive as the right wing tabloids.
IMHO the failure of the NHS to significantly improve from the extra money is vast management structures, PFI making shareholders rich, etc. Just look at the enormous pay-off the head of the Maidstone trust received when she resigned the days before the damning report re: all the deaths caused by C diff.
Posted on: 10 May 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Ken,
Thread drift is inevitable! I like it really, as the original idea usually relates to something broader.
On the issue of paying forty percent tax in terms of income. Far more people do than perhaps realise it. Think what a relatively large proportion of taxed income then goes out on unavoidable Council Tax, on unavoidable tax on fuel and electricity for heating, on unavoidable Water Charges? If these do not amount to a form of taxation - inevitably tax on income for most people, however much it is unrelated TO income, because most are not living on a huge stack of savings or capital - then the effect is that the lowest paid are already contributing a big proportion of their income to this [pseudo] taxation. For the rich, who pay more tax of course, the proportion of actual taxation and that which is unavoidable will often actually be less as a proportion of their income, especially in the middle band of earners. The disposable income can be excruciatingly short for the low paid and pensioners as a direct result of this phenomenon.
I am fully with what you say about the disjoint between voting to pay less tax, and then complaining about the NHS, State Pension Provision and so forth, but I do think we have as a nation to work out our role in the world as no longer the big [ex imperial] late super power. Why are we so much involved in policing the world's hotspots with our military, when compared to other European nations, nowadays? This is bound to be viewed in light of our position forty or fifty years ago, when our commitments to many newly independent Nation States were to some large degree still our responsibility as the former Imperial Power.
Not now though, and times have moved on. Indeed if it were a question of responsibility to a former colony, what of the situation in Zimbabwe? Had this happened in the 1960s, I would not mind a bet that our Army would have been there rather than in Iraq!
Still, that is all theoretical.
ATB from George
Thread drift is inevitable! I like it really, as the original idea usually relates to something broader.
On the issue of paying forty percent tax in terms of income. Far more people do than perhaps realise it. Think what a relatively large proportion of taxed income then goes out on unavoidable Council Tax, on unavoidable tax on fuel and electricity for heating, on unavoidable Water Charges? If these do not amount to a form of taxation - inevitably tax on income for most people, however much it is unrelated TO income, because most are not living on a huge stack of savings or capital - then the effect is that the lowest paid are already contributing a big proportion of their income to this [pseudo] taxation. For the rich, who pay more tax of course, the proportion of actual taxation and that which is unavoidable will often actually be less as a proportion of their income, especially in the middle band of earners. The disposable income can be excruciatingly short for the low paid and pensioners as a direct result of this phenomenon.
I am fully with what you say about the disjoint between voting to pay less tax, and then complaining about the NHS, State Pension Provision and so forth, but I do think we have as a nation to work out our role in the world as no longer the big [ex imperial] late super power. Why are we so much involved in policing the world's hotspots with our military, when compared to other European nations, nowadays? This is bound to be viewed in light of our position forty or fifty years ago, when our commitments to many newly independent Nation States were to some large degree still our responsibility as the former Imperial Power.
Not now though, and times have moved on. Indeed if it were a question of responsibility to a former colony, what of the situation in Zimbabwe? Had this happened in the 1960s, I would not mind a bet that our Army would have been there rather than in Iraq!
Still, that is all theoretical.
ATB from George
Posted on: 10 May 2008 by djftw
Ken,
Read back carefully and you will see a grinning smiley, which might perhaps indicate to you that the birth tax thing was a joke - I was referring to the contention of some people on this forum that the world is severely overpopulated, which George clearly understood, but you apparently did not.
As it just so happens I am childless, but then I am only 22 so I hope I have a fair few years left to change that. However, I would contend that I have a very large family. Nor do I read the Mail with any great regularity, and then for entertainment rather than news. Knowing quite a bit about the media, I would say you are misguided in your assertion that in order in the top band one must be a Mail reader, that particular demographic have much more of a predisposition to the Telegraph, FT, Times or if they work in the public sector also the Guardian.
You also misunderstand the nature of my complaint about taxation, I have no huge problem with the current level of income tax in the upper band. I do have other problems with the tax system but those could take a long time to explain. My problem was the nature of government spending, especially this government's. The point that they are taking my money and using it badly was why I was comparing it to theft. We have seen huge increases in expenditure, but so much of it has been on pointless pet projects and bureaucracy that no-one really needs. At the same time they seem to have managed to have made even the things that used to work profoundly inefficient in the name of meeting targets. This town used to have one policeman who we all knew by name when I was younger, and we saw him most days walking about. I don't think he arrested many people, (if we were playing up he'd threaten to call our mothers) but we didn't have much crime. Now we have 4 officers, 2 specials, 8 PCSOs, a traffic warden and goodness knows what else. The officers are never seen unless a crime has already happened, because they're bogged down with paperwork or harassing motorists to meet their ticket target. The Chavs just mouth off at the PCSOs because they know they have no real power.
Anyway, I hope that clarifies my position to you somewhat.
Regards,
Dom
Read back carefully and you will see a grinning smiley, which might perhaps indicate to you that the birth tax thing was a joke - I was referring to the contention of some people on this forum that the world is severely overpopulated, which George clearly understood, but you apparently did not.
As it just so happens I am childless, but then I am only 22 so I hope I have a fair few years left to change that. However, I would contend that I have a very large family. Nor do I read the Mail with any great regularity, and then for entertainment rather than news. Knowing quite a bit about the media, I would say you are misguided in your assertion that in order in the top band one must be a Mail reader, that particular demographic have much more of a predisposition to the Telegraph, FT, Times or if they work in the public sector also the Guardian.
You also misunderstand the nature of my complaint about taxation, I have no huge problem with the current level of income tax in the upper band. I do have other problems with the tax system but those could take a long time to explain. My problem was the nature of government spending, especially this government's. The point that they are taking my money and using it badly was why I was comparing it to theft. We have seen huge increases in expenditure, but so much of it has been on pointless pet projects and bureaucracy that no-one really needs. At the same time they seem to have managed to have made even the things that used to work profoundly inefficient in the name of meeting targets. This town used to have one policeman who we all knew by name when I was younger, and we saw him most days walking about. I don't think he arrested many people, (if we were playing up he'd threaten to call our mothers) but we didn't have much crime. Now we have 4 officers, 2 specials, 8 PCSOs, a traffic warden and goodness knows what else. The officers are never seen unless a crime has already happened, because they're bogged down with paperwork or harassing motorists to meet their ticket target. The Chavs just mouth off at the PCSOs because they know they have no real power.
Anyway, I hope that clarifies my position to you somewhat.
Regards,
Dom
Posted on: 10 May 2008 by KenM
quote:Originally posted by djftw:
Indeed! Mind you, I suspect the social effects would be far more beneficial, might actually make people consider things properly before they have children! And of course it would be much fairer, with the availability of contraception nowadays becoming pregnant is a choice, well it always was, but wearing a condom or making your partner wear one is a far easier than deciding to be abstinent! Death rarely is by choice!
Bit unfair on the Catholics though, not that I know any who stick rigidly to the Church's position on contraception!
Dom,
I saw and understood the smiley in your first post on the "birth tax", but you appear to have moved to a more serious vein in your smiley-free post which is quoted above.
Your position on wasted revenue is one I fully agree with. We all want to eliminate waste. But, defining what is waste and what is a sensible degree of overcapacity is often a matter of opinion. We want a doctor or nurse to be available, a policeman or fireman respond immediately to an emergency and so on.
Ken