Reply to: Inheritance Tax

[TheFaQQer]

That may be so, but it should be up to the person making the will to decide what they do with their money.

It's called estate planning. Do it right and regardless of the size of the estate, there is no inheritance tax to pay.

If you're smart enough to have built up this fortune that you want to give away, then you should be smart enough to plan how to dispose of it without incurring taxes.

[DodgyAgent]

So when your kids are 40, and have kids of their own, will you not want to pay off their mortgage for them? I think by then they might get away with not growing up spoilt (spoiled?).

fair point. but if they know that they are in for a big pay out then may then borrow against it or not work as hard as they would if they knew they were not going to get anything.

The point I am making here is that if we have a tax system then inheritance tax is as fair a tax as there is. The only people it affects are dead anyway. we teach our children to grow up to be self reliant. This is how they learn responsibility, respect for others, to understand the value of people and things. Giving for nothing is as unhealthy as it gets.

[Moscow Mule]

There is nothing strange about the logic. I have no intention of giving my children any more than a deposit for a property. If I leave them a lot of money they will have no reason to get out of bed in the morning. Why should they have an easy life? why is having an easy life better than having a tough life that teaches you the hardships of life how to deal with them.?
Giving children money in return for not earning it is the worst thing a parent can do to a child it is called spoiling them. They learn to have no respect for money and are stripped of their own aspirations and are likely to blow it on booze and drugs anyway.

So when your kids are 40, and have kids of their own, will you not want to pay off their mortgage for them? I think by then they might get away with not growing up spoilt (spoiled?).

[kingshuk]

Does anyone here know what percentage of net annual tax revenue comes from inheritance tax? Is it a substantial percentage?

[DodgyAgent]

That's just strange logic. You might as well say that a child of yours is no more deserving of your love than a stranger, or if you were to give one of your kidneys to save a life, your childs life is no more important than a strangers.

Families don't work like that. You must have been brought up in a care home.

You work hard to build a legacy and a foundation to give to your children so that they have something to build upon, and they don't have to work themselves to death like you did and start from scratch.

But then, what sort of logic or sense can we expect from an agent, the cockroach of the business world.

There is nothing strange about the logic. I have no intention of giving my children any more than a deposit for a property. If I leave them a lot of money they will have no reason to get out of bed in the morning. Why should they have an easy life? why is having an easy life better than having a tough life that teaches you the hardships of life how to deal with them.?
Giving children money in return for not earning it is the worst thing a parent can do to a child it is called spoiling them. They learn to have no respect for money and are stripped of their own aspirations and are likely to blow it on booze and drugs anyway.

Of course I agree the point about the govt getting its grubby hands on the fruits of our labour and squandering them, so let us spend it or give it to those who have no opportunities in life, those that are represented by charities.

[shoes]

That is not the point I am debating. I am saying that if we have to pay taxes the fairest tax is inheritance tax, because the recipients of wealth without doing anything for it are hardly deserving are they?

An example of a fair tax is a flat rate on all income - there are other ways to get tax from a population, we don't need inheritance tax.

And no, the people that recieve the money are not deserving, but since when was anything fair? People that make a decent amount of money would be the first to admit that they were in the right place at the right time, or that there was some element of 'luck' in their obtaining of wealth. Sure, they took a chance and they worked hard, but there are many more of those that tried and failed than there are wealthy people. Maybe this is why some wealthy people choose to give free money to their children - They worry they won't be as lucky as they were. Success is rarely about who deserves what.

Some people are born with a greater intellect than others, and this can lead to an increased ability to make money - some have a strong work ethic because of their upbringing - we are all the result of our genetic makeup and environment, none of which we have any control over in the formative time of our lives - This makes obtaining wealth easier for some people than for others. There is no fair.

[Gonzo]

I am saying that if we have to pay taxes the fairest tax is inheritance tax, because the recipients of wealth without doing anything for it are hardly deserving are they?

Another perspective would be that inheritance tax is not a tax on the heirs but a tax on the person that is about to die.

If I were approaching my last legs, and I knew that I couldn't distribute my hard earned assets to whom I wanted to, instead the government were going to take it, then I would squander the lot. That would benefit the economy (and some of that might trickle through out of the black economy) but the government wouldn't get anything.

[King Cnvt]

That is not the point I am debating. I am saying that if we have to pay taxes the fairest tax is inheritance tax, because the recipients of wealth without doing anything for it are hardly deserving are they?

That's just strange logic. You might as well say that a child of yours is no more deserving of your love than a stranger, or if you were to give one of your kidneys to save a life, your childs life is no more important than a strangers.

Families don't work like that. You must have been brought up in a care home.

You work hard to build a legacy and a foundation to give to your children so that they have something to build upon, and they don't have to work themselves to death like you did and start from scratch.

But then, what sort of logic or sense can we expect from an agent, the cockroach of the business world.

[DodgyAgent]

That may be so, but it should be up to the person making the will to decide what they do with their money. With tax on inheritance they have no choice but to give some of the money away - and worse, they have to give it to a group of people who will spend it in a way they may not agree with. If you've done well enough in life financially to make where your money goes an issue, you deserve to be able to do with it what you please.

That is not the point I am debating. I am saying that if we have to pay taxes the fairest tax is inheritance tax, because the recipients of wealth without doing anything for it are hardly deserving are they?

[shoes]

Giving people something for nothing (children especially) is one of the worst things that you can do.

That may be so, but it should be up to the person making the will to decide what they do with their money. With tax on inheritance they have no choice but to give some of the money away - and worse, they have to give it to a group of people who will spend it in a way they may not agree with. If you've done well enough in life financially to make where your money goes an issue, you deserve to be able to do with it what you please.

[shaunbhoy]

How monumentally ironic that these sentiments are being trumpeted by a Rec Con.

[DodgyAgent]

Don't tar all families with the same brush. I'm sure some do squabble over inheritance, but some do not. Some respect the wishes of those that have died and use the money to have a more secure and less stressful existance for themselves and their children, as the deceased has wished. I would bet that providing a secure future for your family is a great motivator in creating wealth in the first place - would you like to have that incentive taken away?

If it is the choice of the person that made the money not to leave it to their children and give it to charity or whatever because they don't think 'free' money will do their offspring any good then they can do that. They should have the CHOICE. Tax inheritance and the choice of what happens to a proportion of YOUR money when you die is taken away from YOU.

There are two sides to this. Stop envying those that might recieve it and instead pity those that are unable to do what they wish with it when they die.

Absolute tosh (with respect ) the greatest motivator is not having anything at all. If you are "comfortable" then why get out of bed in the morning?

Why is it that all these eastern europeans come over here and work their nuts off in jobs that are poorly paid and below their abilities? because they have no welfare and no families to live off? Why are the Germans not doing the same? because they have welfare.

Not having to work or being supported creates a complacent and lazy society. Giving people something for nothing (children especially) is one of the worst things that you can do.

Examples of how paying out and asking nothing in return leads to laziness complacency and inefficiency are everywhere from public sector services, to salesmen on fat basic salaries.

If there is a choice between reducing the tax for those on low salaries or taxing inheritance then it should be inheritance every time.

[wendigo100]

Sorry, I was replying to where you said... "and it isn't theirs".

I still object to the tax but that is a separate argument.

[TheFaQQer]

I don't think that's a very sensible thing to say, if you don't mind me saying so.

Of course I don't mind.

For a start, my wife spent a lot of time out of work looking after the kids. When I die in your world she'd lose the house, my main asset, because it isn't hers. My kids couldn't keep my company going, because it isn't theirs.

Your world could end up in utter chaos where nobody would bother building up assets, or a company, because they would all end up getting snatched away in the end.

The beneficiaries of my estate are those who I earned it for, not you, the government, or the feckless bugger up the road who pisses his wages up the wall every week.

I think, perhaps, that you've read more into my post than I was intending. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to leave your estate to who you want to. However, your argument was that you've paid tax on it, therefore it's yours to do what you want with it. Your beneficiaries have not paid tax on it, though, which is why I believe that if the estate is over a certain threshold, they should pay tax on it.

The world you describe is not "your world" - it's the world that we live in under this government, and under any government that has inheritance tax. There is a threshold, over which tax has to be paid. I'm not in any way suggesting that people should be turfed out on the streets - your argument was you've paid tax on it, mine is that the beneficiaries have not and therefore should.

The Tory policy of taking some from the rich to give to the comfortably well off doesn't really hit a chord with me. It makes no difference to anyone who is smart enough to take out some degree of insurance or estate planning, it's yet another way of trying to grab headlines with something where the sums don't add up.

[GreenerGrass]

LOL @ the idea of lazy students spending their inheritance on gap years. People are living longer, most "kids" will be not far off retirement age themselves before they get any benefit.
It's hardly a fast track to a life of leisure, it just means you don't have to worry about your pensions being robbed, a stockmarket crash wiping out your own funds, or requiring state assistance.