Inheritance Tax

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36263

Forget the farmers, but why should anyone be taxed on money that’s already been taxed, what justifies any government taxing someone’s assets on their death.

Grayhoundend · **Joined:** Tue Aug 19, 2014 12:13 pm **Posts:** 6614

We are of a similar age Snowy, You know exactly why they do it.

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12320

Well whatever the reason it should be stopped. People put a bit by to maybe give their kids or grandkids a bit of a lift and the politicians put their grubby mitts in first. God knows where we are gonna end up with taxes and pension raids by the time this lot are done.

Splod · **Posted:** Wed Nov 20, 2024 5:27 pm

In parts of the country, in London and the south and west, many quite ordinary family homes will pass the £1m threshold that has been frozen for some time and a growing number of families will have to pay this tax at 40%. The issue is going to get bigger and bigger. It will become increasingly frustrating that the mega wealthy can avoid IHT by complex allowances and trust structures etc. If a tax is needed make it simple and don't allow special cases. The unravelling of farming and business allowances show how complex it all is. Make tax simple, make it fair, progressive and make sure everyone pays it and can't avoid it. Maybe Starmer doesn't want to stop the gravy train for his lawyerl mates who make a fine living out of tax planning.

PTID · **Joined:** Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:07 pm **Posts:** 3863

Pension pots will be taking a hit now both in terms of paying in, and people will be withdrawing funds now to try to get under the threshold. For a single person living in a nice house there's not a massive amount you're allowed to leave without IHT being due.
It's an obscene tax and should be abolished. And by the way Sir Two Tier has a pension fund well in excess of £1m all of which is tax exempt due to a specific Keir Starmer Law.

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36263

PTID wrote:

Pension pots will be taking a hit now both in terms of paying in, and people will be withdrawing funds now to try to get under the threshold. For a single person living in a nice house there's not a massive amount you're allowed to leave without IHT being due.
It's an obscene tax and should be abolished. And by the way Sir Two Tier has a pension fund well in excess of £1m all of which is tax exempt due to a specific Keir Starmer Law.

How convenient.m

Mikey76 · **Joined:** Sun Mar 31, 2024 10:02 pm **Posts:** 574

I'll play devil's advocate then:

Hang on, is it not right that you can give you kids half a million tax free including your house - how much do they want, lazy buggers!? Say you had as estate worth a million, that's 700k tax free I think? Again, how much do the little grifters want?
Even then, give the money away before you die - gets it out of banks into the economy. Or just spend it having a good time - you only live once! Dying with 100s of 1000s in the bank seems pretty depressing to me.
Then, does this even affect many people here? (Rhetorical as that's a private matter.) I say this though because this is a group of people from Hartlepool mostly, with low house prices. I'm surprised it's much of an issue.

I do actually agree with Splod though - tax should be simple, unavoidable to the rich and progressive. It's sadly virtually impossible to have a sensible discussion though - people want good services but don't want to pay for them. imho as always.

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36263

[quote="Mikey76"]I'll play devil's advocate then:

Hang on, is it not right that you can give you kids half a million tax free including your house - how much do they want, lazy buggers!? Say you had as estate worth a million, that's 700k tax free I think? Again, how much do the little grifters want?
It’s their money, and none of your bleeding business.

Even then, give the money away before you die - gets it out of banks into the economy. Or just spend it having a good time - you only live once! Dying with 100s of 1000s in the bank seems pretty depressing to me.
Agreed
Then, does this even affect many people here? (Rhetorical as that's a private matter.) I say this though because this is a group of people from Hartlepool mostly, with low house prices. I'm surprised it's much of an issue.
Even plebs have opinions, being a pleb I can dream.

I do actually agree with Splod though - tax should be simple, unavoidable to the rich and progressive. It's sadly virtually impossible to have a sensible discussion though - people want good services but don't want to pay for them. imho as always.
We pay income tax for such services
[\quote]

PTID · **Joined:** Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:07 pm **Posts:** 3863

So someone who bought in today's most sought after areas and live in a house that's now worth close to a million means all that a couple can leave tax free is the house. 40% of everything else is taken by the government regardless that the house was bought from net earnings. A single person just leaving the house is only allowed to leave £500k so that 40% of the remainder (£200k) for the benefactors to find before probate is granted, you can't even sell the house to pay the tax until probate has been granted.
Hardly hitting those with the broadest shoulders. How much do you reckon the likes of Bransons estate will pay in IHT when he pops his clogs.
Blunderbuss budget doing far more harm than good, never mind the pensioners who do survive the next few years will like the rest of us plebs be better off sometime in the future, and that must be true cos Starmer said it just this morning.

Mikey76 · **Joined:** Sun Mar 31, 2024 10:02 pm **Posts:** 574

Snowy wrote:

Mikey76 wrote:

I'll play devil's advocate then:

Hang on, is it not right that you can give you kids half a million tax free including your house - how much do they want, lazy buggers!? Say you had as estate worth a million, that's 700k tax free I think? Again, how much do the little grifters want?
It’s their money, and none of your bleeding business.

- Does that not apply to all money then? Other money is taxed? We talk about other taxes? If none of this is any of our business it'll be a short discussion.

Even then, give the money away before you die - gets it out of banks into the economy. Or just spend it having a good time - you only live once! Dying with 100s of 1000s in the bank seems pretty depressing to me.
Agreed

- Good stuff

Then, does this even affect many people here? (Rhetorical as that's a private matter.) I say this though because this is a group of people from Hartlepool mostly, with low house prices. I'm surprised it's much of an issue.
Even plebs have opinions, being a pleb I can dream.

- Dream of earning loads of money and keeping it in a bank til you die?

I do actually agree with Splod though - tax should be simple, unavoidable to the rich and progressive. It's sadly virtually impossible to have a sensible discussion though - people want good services but don't want to pay for them. imho as always.
We pay income tax for such services

- But income tax alone is clearly not enough. We could get rid of IHT and pay more income tax? Plenty of countries do that, like Sweden, but is there appetite in the UK for that? I don't believe so.

[\quote]

The original question was a good one though and there should be a national debate. Ideally you wouldn't have IHT at all but of all taxes it's the one that, personally speaking, I care least about.

Grayhoundend · **Joined:** Tue Aug 19, 2014 12:13 pm **Posts:** 6614

PTID wrote:

Pension pots will be taking a hit now both in terms of paying in, and people will be withdrawing funds now to try to get under the threshold. For a single person living in a nice house there's not a massive amount you're allowed to leave without IHT being due.
It's an obscene tax and should be abolished. And by the way Sir Two Tier has a pension fund well in excess of £1m all of which is tax exempt due to a specific Keir Starmer Law.

We all know whose pensions wont be touched!!!

kevin pooles gloves · **Joined:** Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:28 pm **Posts:** 8856

Mikey76 wrote:

I'll play devil's advocate then:

Hang on, is it not right that you can give you kids half a million tax free including your house - how much do they want, lazy buggers!? Say you had as estate worth a million, that's 700k tax free I think? Again, how much do the little grifters want?
Even then, give the money away before you die - gets it out of banks into the economy. Or just spend it having a good time - you only live once! Dying with 100s of 1000s in the bank seems pretty depressing to me.
Then, does this even affect many people here? (Rhetorical as that's a private matter.) I say this though because this is a group of people from Hartlepool mostly, with low house prices. I'm surprised it's much of an issue.

I do actually agree with Splod though - tax should be simple, unavoidable to the rich and progressive. It's sadly virtually impossible to have a sensible discussion though - people want good services but don't want to pay for them. imho as always.

Never understood why anyone wants to die with a shit load of Dosh in the bank.

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36263

kevin pooles gloves wrote:

Mikey76 wrote:

I'll play devil's advocate then:

Hang on, is it not right that you can give you kids half a million tax free including your house - how much do they want, lazy buggers!? Say you had as estate worth a million, that's 700k tax free I think? Again, how much do the little grifters want?
Even then, give the money away before you die - gets it out of banks into the economy. Or just spend it having a good time - you only live once! Dying with 100s of 1000s in the bank seems pretty depressing to me.
Then, does this even affect many people here? (Rhetorical as that's a private matter.) I say this though because this is a group of people from Hartlepool mostly, with low house prices. I'm surprised it's much of an issue.

I do actually agree with Splod though - tax should be simple, unavoidable to the rich and progressive. It's sadly virtually impossible to have a sensible discussion though - people want good services but don't want to pay for them. imho as always.

Never understood why anyone wants to die with a shit load of Dosh in the bank.

I won’t have that problem…..!

PTID · **Joined:** Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:07 pm **Posts:** 3863

So someone who saves to have a comfortable life and leave a bit for their relatives when they've gone pay this tax to support those who scrounge of the benefit system for themselves and their dependents is fair?
As for wanting good services but not being prepared to pay for them, really? Overall we pay handsomely for good services but are provided with shoddy instead due to bloated beurocracy and inefficiency. It's not more money the NHS needs it's better management and accountability.

kevin pooles gloves · **Joined:** Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:28 pm **Posts:** 8856

Just seen a video of an x forces 29year old from Manchester who lives rough in a bus shelter.
Hit hard financiall times when his wife died and has to wait till he's 30 to apply for social housing accommodation.

Bloke doing video obviously disgusted with all the 1000,s of Boaties getting priority.

Like I said previously us English are just pieces of shit for the government who tax the shit out of us.

Some Councillor piping up last week about how discustingly high Hartlepools c tax is compared to posh Chelsea n other areas.

Nothing will happen.
In fact we will be paying the full maximum 5% increase year on year.

Sometimes pays to be a complete lazy bastad.

Joke country that hates its own.

Owt happen from that Manchester Airport carry on.

Mikey76 · **Joined:** Sun Mar 31, 2024 10:02 pm **Posts:** 574

'... leave a bit for their relatives...' - £700k tax free including a house is quite 'a bit'. I'd be chuffed to bits if someone left me that.

You're dead right about reform but with respect, saying IHT goes to scroungers is a bit selective when you know tax contributes to health, policing, schools and universities, roads and infrastructure, railways, industry including farming, heritage, culture, defence spending, social housing, pensions, debt, the courts and yes, the welfare system (and whatever else I've forgotten.) It's probably safe to say we both hate seeing people abuse the system but of all those things listed above jobseeker's allowance is a small percentage and of course not everyone is abusing the system.

I guess the point is, objecting to inheritance tax because it goes to scroungers is perhaps a stretch given all the other funding pressures.

I'll say again though, you're right about bloated bureaucracy - the country needs objective, cross party sector reviews and clear recommendations, followed by effective implementation. I'm not confident our politic system allows for this though.

PTID · **Joined:** Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:07 pm **Posts:** 3863

The point is that if someone's worked and paid their taxes and managed to put money aside for their dependents, then why is it taken from them just because they've died. If it was a fair tax everyone would pay it regardless of if they leave a thousand or a hundred million.
Where's the incentive for middle to high earners to invest in a pension fund that the government will ultimately steal when your dead. And this is just the start, the thresholds will be reduced every year by Labour governments as more and more rely on the benefit system.
Of course IHT goes to scroungers just as a large proportion of other taxes do. The welfare budget is astronomical and growing by the day as jobs are lost and more non contributors arrive.

Jamie1952 · **Joined:** Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:56 pm **Posts:** 6995

kevin pooles gloves wrote:

Just seen a video of an x forces 29year old from Manchester who lives rough in a bus shelter.
Hit hard financiall times when his wife died and has to wait till he's 30 to apply for social housing accommodation.

Bloke doing video obviously disgusted with all the 1000,s of Boaties getting priority.

Like I said previously us English are just pieces of shit for the government who tax the shit out of us.

Some Councillor piping up last week about how discustingly high Hartlepools c tax is compared to posh Chelsea n other areas.

Nothing will happen.
In fact we will be paying the full maximum 5% increase year on year.

Sometimes pays to be a complete lazy bastad.

Joke country that hates its own.

Owt happen from that Manchester Airport carry on.

From what I have seen in the MSM The Reform Party are considering taking a private prosecution against the one who attached the Police.

Mikey76 · **Joined:** Sun Mar 31, 2024 10:02 pm **Posts:** 574

Take your point on savings, don’t fully agree but it’s a fair point. I did say earlier I’d do away with IHT but it’s here and personally doesn’t bother me.

On welfare though, yes it’s astronomical but breaking down what is included as Welfare - spending on pensioners is by far the biggest chunk of money. Spending on people of working age is less than 1/5th of the Welfare bill.

Also, Health and Education are the biggest recipient of tax monies. Paying interest on national debt is greater than money spent on working age job seekers allowance by a good percentage. The perception that our taxes are largely spent on scroungers isn’t really backed up by facts tbh. You can of course argue that some is but really it’s small beer given the size of the economy.

Sussex UK · **Joined:** Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:34 pm **Posts:** 3441

Mikey76 wrote:

The perception that our taxes are largely spent on scroungers isn’t really backed up by facts tbh. You can of course argue that some is but really it’s small beer given the size of the economy.

small change? You're having a laugh?

PTID · **Joined:** Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:07 pm **Posts:** 3863

Forecast to be spending £315bn on Welfare this budget year or 25% of the total UK budget so hardly a drop in the ocean. Plus that doesn't include migrants and asylum seekers benefits as that comes out of a different pot (Overseas Aid).

PTID · **Joined:** Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:07 pm **Posts:** 3863

Just as an aside, if there was a tax on everything you owed on the day of your 50th birthday say would it be fair if the government arbitrarily took 40% of it if it was over say £100k including your house? Of course it wouldn't so why is it acceptable to do the same just because you've died? It'll discourage savers and entrepreneurs, decimate pension funds which ironically the government want to force into UK investment programs and schemes, and ultimately the richest will shelter their assets in ways that Joe Public can't.
All part of Labours Orwellian dreams.

Krampesh · **Joined:** Sat Jul 10, 2021 10:14 am **Posts:** 577

PTID wrote:

Forecast to be spending £315bn on Welfare this budget year or 25% of the total UK budget so hardly a drop in the ocean. Plus that doesn't include migrants and asylum seekers benefits as that comes out of a different pot (Overseas Aid).

Over 40% of that figure is State pension. Universal Credit only makes up 28% (£89bn) of that figure, whether you think that's too much or not is another thing . Most of the rest of your figure will be care, social services etc.

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12320

Krampesh wrote:

PTID wrote:

Forecast to be spending £315bn on Welfare this budget year or 25% of the total UK budget so hardly a drop in the ocean. Plus that doesn't include migrants and asylum seekers benefits as that comes out of a different pot (Overseas Aid).

Over 40% of that figure is State pension. Universal Credit only makes up 28% (£89bn) of that figure, whether you think that's too much or not is another thing . Most of the rest of your figure will be care, social services etc.

I need convincing that the state pension is classed as welfare. Is the NHS also part of the welfare budget????? What exactly are my national insurance contributions been used for over my working life. What we are seeing is a convenient use of words to justify political ideals. Not buying that bullshit.

Mikey76 · **Joined:** Sun Mar 31, 2024 10:02 pm **Posts:** 574

The difference between taking money on your 50th birthday and when you’re dead, is surely that you’re dead and don’t need it. Again, why would anyone want to die with say half a million in their bank account? If it’s for your kids, give it to them while you’re alive.

Also as mentioned, the 25% of total budget on welfare is made up of many things, the biggest of which is pensions (nearly 50% and rising). Then there’s social care etc etc. Income support appears to be 18% of that 25%.

People have different ideological points of view, which is great. I struggle ignoring stuff said as fact when a bit of research shows that’s not quite right. I apologise if it sounds like I’ve got something against you or anyone else for that matter - absolutely not the case! These things are complicated clearly. All the best!

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36263

Mikey76 wrote:

The difference between taking money on your 50th birthday and when you’re dead, is surely that you’re dead and don’t need it.

Their wife and family will want it, it’s THEIR MONEY!

Again, why would anyone want to die with say half a million in their bank account?
That’s their choice and no one else’s business

If it’s for your kids, give it to them while you’re alive.
That’s their choice and none of your business

Also as mentioned, the 25% of total budget on welfare is made up of many things, the biggest of which is pensions (nearly 50% and rising). Then there’s social care etc etc. Income support appears to be 18% of that 25%.
Would it help if all the pensioners died after retirement age?

People have different ideological points of view, which is great. I struggle ignoring stuff said as fact when a bit of research shows that’s not quite right.
You mean people who have different opinions to you

I apologise if it sounds like I’ve got something against you or anyone else for that matter - absolutely not the case!
How long have you been an MP

These things are complicated clearly. All the best!

Mikey76 · **Joined:** Sun Mar 31, 2024 10:02 pm **Posts:** 574

Snowy wrote:

Mikey76 wrote:

The difference between taking money on your 50th birthday and when you’re dead, is surely that you’re dead and don’t need it.

Their wife and family will want it, it’s THEIR MONEY!

- The wife wouldn't pay inheritance tax?

Again, why would anyone want to die with say half a million in their bank account?
That’s their choice and no one else’s business

- It is their business, you're right. People have different opinions on IHT though and fundamentally it boils down to whether people are arsed about money left in a bank when they're dead. I get that but personally don't understand it, which isn't to say one person or another is right, it's just an opinion.

If it’s for your kids, give it to them while you’re alive.
That’s their choice and none of your business

- Again, yes, it's an individual's choice. Personally would rather give my kids the money than the government, so doing that while I'm alive is better for them, me and the economy. Each to their own though.

Also as mentioned, the 25% of total budget on welfare is made up of many things, the biggest of which is pensions (nearly 50% and rising). Then there’s social care etc etc. Income support appears to be 18% of that 25%.
Would it help if all the pensioners died after retirement age?

- Don't be silly Derek. My point was about what comprises the welfare budget and was in answer to a specific point.

People have different ideological points of view, which is great. I struggle ignoring stuff said as fact when a bit of research shows that’s not quite right.
You mean people who have different opinions to you

- no, what I mean is what I typed.

I apologise if it sounds like I’ve got something against you or anyone else for that matter - absolutely not the case!
How long have you been an MP

- Ha, just trying to be civil. All the best to you as well my friend. :laugh:

These things are complicated clearly. All the best!

Mikey76 · **Joined:** Sun Mar 31, 2024 10:02 pm **Posts:** 574

derwent wrote:

Krampesh wrote:

PTID wrote:

Forecast to be spending £315bn on Welfare this budget year or 25% of the total UK budget so hardly a drop in the ocean. Plus that doesn't include migrants and asylum seekers benefits as that comes out of a different pot (Overseas Aid).

Over 40% of that figure is State pension. Universal Credit only makes up 28% (£89bn) of that figure, whether you think that's too much or not is another thing . Most of the rest of your figure will be care, social services etc.

I need convincing that the state pension is classed as welfare. Is the NHS also part of the welfare budget????? What exactly are my national insurance contributions been used for over my working life. What we are seeing is a convenient use of words to justify political ideals. Not buying that bullshit.

Krampesh is correct. The Treasury/IFS/OBR all use a category from Welfare that includes amongst other things pensions. The categories are defined by the United Nations so used internationally. You can then easily find a separate, more detailed breakdown of the UK's Welfare component via IFS/OBR websites and multiple news outlets.

You could sensibly suggest it would be more transparent to separate pensions from the welfare sum (along with other items) but you then wouldn't be able to say 25% of the UK's budget is for Welfare - it would be much reduced.

Is there a Pools match coming up? I look forward to the days when we can get back to slating Raj/asserting that we're playoff certainties. :laugh:

Bluestreak · **Posted:** Thu Nov 21, 2024 3:21 pm

I have read both sides of the arguement and i dont think the rich farmers are being unfairly treated. Only 20% after allowances repayable over 10 year. Why not like the rest of us?

elwood · **Joined:** Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:31 pm **Posts:** 230

The people who will be really happy about the amount of news concerning IHT will be those professionals who provide estate planning. They must be rolling in dosh at the moment.

elwood · **Joined:** Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:31 pm **Posts:** 230

Bluestreak wrote:

I have read both sides of the arguement and i dont think the rich farmers are being unfairly treated. Only 20% after allowances repayable over 10 year. Why not like the rest of us?

From what I read (as I'm neither a farmer nor an accountant) the issue seems to be what is a Business asset and what is a personal asset. I guess that farmers have ran businesses without really needing to set up a "Business" to separate farm assets from personal assets for financial reasons. Now they have 18 months to get that put right with the costs attached to doing so.

When a farmer's offspring move into a house on the farm, who owns that property? Is it still part of the farm assets owned by the old man or is it a separate asset owned by the child? This is not something that needs to concern a non-farmer leaving their assets to a child as the child probably lives elsewhere.

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12320

My point is that I don't see the state pension as a benefit and it shouldn't be categorised as such in my opinion. Soon more and more people will be receiving it in one hand and have to pay tax back with the other hand, which is a nonsense, also in my opinion.
This government are willing to risk pensioners entering the poverty category for the first time this winter and, God forbid, suffering an early death as a result. I am not happy with this situation and am certainly not accepting their lame excuses for their actions.
All the rhetoric, bullshit and hiding behind regulations and/or statistics I'll leave to others.
It needs changing and by that I mean changing for the better. The knight of the realm currently residing at number 10 puts himself forward as the champion of change. So far the proposed changes don't appear as changes for the better. That is the stat that I'm focussed on.
If the Socialist stalwart who has sadly just passed away were to stand up in Parliament now he would agree with every word. Starmer et al couldn't lace his boots.

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36263

Bluestreak wrote:

I have read both sides of the arguement and i dont think the rich farmers are being unfairly treated. Only 20% after allowances repayable over 10 year. Why not like the rest of us?

Define who the rich farmers are…..this never bothered Labour or the Tory’s before…suddenly this shower are trying to wind up as many people as possible for neglible savings.

Splod · **Posted:** Thu Nov 21, 2024 9:08 pm

Mikey76 wrote:

The difference between taking money on your 50th birthday and when you’re dead, is surely that you’re dead and don’t need it. Again, why would anyone want to die with say half a million in their bank account? If it’s for your kids, give it to them while you’re alive.

The problem with that is that you don't know 7 years in advance of when you are going to kick the bucket. With the state of the care sector anyone would prudently want to keep enough assets to provide for their care over an indeterminate period. How much do you hold back?

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36263

Splod wrote:

Mikey76 wrote:

The difference between taking money on your 50th birthday and when you’re dead, is surely that you’re dead and don’t need it. Again, why would anyone want to die with say half a million in their bank account? If it’s for your kids, give it to them while you’re alive.

The problem with that is that you don't know 7 years in advance of when you are going to kick the bucket. With the state of the care sector anyone would prudently want to keep enough assets to provide for their care over an indeterminate period. How much do you hold back?

Nice one..

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36263

kevin pooles gloves wrote:

Just seen a video of an x forces 29year old from Manchester who lives rough in a bus shelter.
Hit hard financiall times when his wife died and has to wait till he's 30 to apply for social housing accommodation.

Bloke doing video obviously disgusted with all the 1000,s of Boaties getting priority.

Like I said previously us English are just pieces of shit for the government who tax the shit out of us.

Some Councillor piping up last week about how discustingly high Hartlepools c tax is compared to posh Chelsea n other areas.

Nothing will happen.
In fact we will be paying the full maximum 5% increase year on year.

Sometimes pays to be a complete lazy bastad.

Joke country that hates its own.

Owt happen from that Manchester Airport carry on.

Still strangely quiet on that front.

PTID · **Joined:** Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:07 pm **Posts:** 3863

The thing is it's savings that you've made after you've already paid tax, it's legalised theft and immoral.
Robbing the dead, freezing the old (4000 early deaths), driving 50000 pensioners into poverty, stalling economic growth, forcing inflation up, good starting 4 months or so eh?

Mikey76 · **Joined:** Sun Mar 31, 2024 10:02 pm **Posts:** 574

Splod wrote:

Mikey76 wrote:

The difference between taking money on your 50th birthday and when you’re dead, is surely that you’re dead and don’t need it. Again, why would anyone want to die with say half a million in their bank account? If it’s for your kids, give it to them while you’re alive.

The problem with that is that you don't know 7 years in advance of when you are going to kick the bucket. With the state of the care sector anyone would prudently want to keep enough assets to provide for their care over an indeterminate period. How much do you hold back?

That’s a fair point. I’d still contend getting up to 700k tax free and then potentially sizeable amounts after that is decent wedge but I obviously get what you and others are saying. You can give money away regardless of the 7 year rule as well.
You’re almost better having nowt when it comes to paying for a care home. They’ll take your money until you get under a pretty low threshold - my dad learned that the hard way and regretted not giving more away before while he could. I’ve said a couple of times I’d rather IHT was abolished but as it is I think the limit is still generous enough and won’t affect me or my family.

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36263

Pull the ladder up Jack, I’m alright.

Jamie1952 · **Joined:** Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:56 pm **Posts:** 6995

elwood wrote:

Bluestreak wrote:

I have read both sides of the arguement and i dont think the rich farmers are being unfairly treated. Only 20% after allowances repayable over 10 year. Why not like the rest of us?

From what I read (as I'm neither a farmer nor an accountant) the issue seems to be what is a Business asset and what is a personal asset. I guess that farmers have ran businesses without really needing to set up a "Business" to separate farm assets from personal assets for financial reasons. Now they have 18 months to get that put right with the costs attached to doing so.

When a farmer's offspring move into a house on the farm, who owns that property? Is it still part of the farm assets owned by the old man or is it a separate asset owned by the child? This is not something that needs to concern a non-farmer leaving their assets to a child as the child probably lives elsewhere.

An individual farmer living in the house and working the land would or should be able separate the house as accommodation to include an office. The ones who will have no way round it is owners of huge estates where there are multiple tenant farmers who won’t be affected by inheritance tax. The Royal Family would fall into this but from what I know they are not liable for inheritance tax.

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36263

Jamie1952 wrote:

elwood wrote:

Bluestreak wrote:

I have read both sides of the arguement and i dont think the rich farmers are being unfairly treated. Only 20% after allowances repayable over 10 year. Why not like the rest of us?

From what I read (as I'm neither a farmer nor an accountant) the issue seems to be what is a Business asset and what is a personal asset. I guess that farmers have ran businesses without really needing to set up a "Business" to separate farm assets from personal assets for financial reasons. Now they have 18 months to get that put right with the costs attached to doing so.

When a farmer's offspring move into a house on the farm, who owns that property? Is it still part of the farm assets owned by the old man or is it a separate asset owned by the child? This is not something that needs to concern a non-farmer leaving their assets to a child as the child probably lives elsewhere.

An individual farmer living in the house and working the land would or should be able separate the house as accommodation to include an office. The ones who will have no way round it is owners of huge estates where there are multiple tenant farmers who won’t be affected by inheritance tax. The Royal Family would fall into this but from what I know they are not liable for inheritance tax.

The annoying thing is that Reeves and Starmer ( Reeves & Mortimer) allegedly set out to catch the big boys, the mega rich land owners who grow nothing on their land…but all they’re punishing is the people further down the line.
Meanwhile the super rich remain untouched.

PTID · **Joined:** Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:07 pm **Posts:** 3863

The house or office are still assets and therefore within IHT so there isn't a way around it. The relief farmers had was APR which excluded agricultural property (land, business, livestock, crops in the field, machinery, etc). That's being taken away and is going to hurt not just the individual farmers but us as food prices rise consequently.
Fair enough charge a tax if the property is sold outwith the business but that should more appropriately on profits (CGT) rather than just because someone died.
It may not affect most of us currently, but that doesn't make it right or fair, what about if they drop the threshold from £1m to £100k would we be bothered (I'd imagine we'd all be affected given average house prices in Hartlepool are around £140k)?

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36263

PTID wrote:

It may not affect most of us currently, but that doesn't make it right or fair, what about if they drop the threshold from £1m to £100k would we be bothered (I'd imagine we'd all be affected given average house prices in Hartlepool are around £140k)?

I’d imagine some on here who approve would do a sharp U turn if that ever happened and not even blush. :laugh:

accrington fan · **Joined:** Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:22 pm **Posts:** 18786

Snowy wrote:

kevin pooles gloves wrote:

[

Never understood why anyone wants to die with a shit load of Dosh in the bank.

I won’t have that problem…..!

if i had i would make damn sure the government never got a penny of it. no real sorry for anyone who knows the score and just sit on an expensive house with a big bank balance when they could sell it, move into rented property and give the money away or go on the spend spend spend spree lashing at the labour party every pound you spend. actually cannot think of anything better now to do with life if i could do that. if there is a loophole then use it. big international businesses will be doing it today.

accrington fan · **Joined:** Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:22 pm **Posts:** 18786

PTID wrote:

The house or office are still assets and therefore within IHT so there isn't a way around it. The relief farmers had was APR which excluded agricultural property (land, business, livestock, crops in the field, machinery, etc). That's being taken away and is going to hurt not just the individual farmers but us as food prices rise consequently.
Fair enough charge a tax if the property is sold outwith the business but that should more appropriately on profits (CGT) rather than just because someone died.
It may not affect most of us currently, but that doesn't make it right or fair, what about if they drop the threshold from £1m to £100k would we be bothered (I'd imagine we'd all be affected given average house prices in Hartlepool are around £140k)?

thats the problem with homes and with farms. their value is dependant on where they will be situated rather than the size of them. situated means where in the country they are and not the terrain.

PTID · **Joined:** Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:07 pm **Posts:** 3863

Another postcode lottery then.

accrington fan · **Joined:** Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:22 pm **Posts:** 18786

PTID wrote:

Another postcode lottery then.

be interesting which ones benefit the most from that as well when the draw is being made. doubt TS or BD are the top of the lists.

poolie1966 · **Joined:** Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:55 am **Posts:** 1168

accrington fan wrote:

Snowy wrote:

kevin pooles gloves wrote:

[

Never understood why anyone wants to die with a shit load of Dosh in the bank.

I won’t have that problem…..!

if i had i would make damn sure the government never got a penny of it. no real sorry for anyone who knows the score and just sit on an expensive house with a big bank balance when they could sell it, move into rented property and give the money away or go on the spend spend spend spree lashing at the labour party every pound you spend. actually cannot think of anything better now to do with life if i could do that. if there is a loophole then use it. big international businesses will be doing it today.

The big problem with your idea is that if I sell my house, which is now mortgage free & move into rented property, I will have to pay the rent as I wouldn't qualify for any sort of benefits. So the money I gain from selling my house will quickly go with having to pay at least £800 a month rent.

Jamie1952 · **Joined:** Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:56 pm **Posts:** 6995

I thought of putting my property in my daughters name, nope she would have to charge me the going rental rate.

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36263

Tow things that are unavoidable are death and taxes…but they just got worse under Starmer.

Inheritance Tax

Gadgies online