Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Rave

Daily Mail 'crusade Against Inheritance Tax'

Recommended Posts

The one and only story on the front page of the Mail today is that there's apparently a groundswell of suport for their great crusade against inheritance tax (which they reckon is unfair). Listen Dacre you feckwit: if you'd campaigned against HPI, then the value of the estates of 90% of your readers would never have gone above the inheritance tax threshold in the first place.

Retards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one and only story on the front page of the Mail today is that there's apparently a groundswell of suport for their great crusade against inheritance tax (which they reckon is unfair). Listen Dacre you feckwit: if you'd campaigned against HPI, then the value of the estates of 90% of your readers would never have gone above the inheritance tax threshold in the first place.

Retards.

How many Daily Mail readers think that if inheritance tax was abolished, the governmment wouldn't need to raise the shortfall by some other tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many Daily Mail readers think that if inheritance tax was abolished, the governmment wouldn't need to raise the shortfall by some other tax.

None. If they were clever they wouldn't read the Mail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the broadsheets are so much better? why should people be taxed twice on money they have worked for? how about cutting benefits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why should people be taxed twice on money they have worked for?

Any money you gained by house price inflation of your primary residence was not taxed in the first place, so it isn't being taxed twice, only once by inheritance tax. If it isn't above the IHT threshold, it isn't even taxed once.

So much for "taxed twice".

frugalista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any money you gained by house price inflation of your primary residence was not taxed in the first place, so it isn't being taxed twice, only once by inheritance tax. If it isn't above the IHT threshold, it isn't even taxed once.

So much for "taxed twice".

frugalista

Anyway, so what if it's taxed twice. Most taxes are taxed twice and more, if you think about it.

If IHT were abolished which kind of new or extra taxation would you like in its place?

I'd sooner pay tax when I'm dead than when I'm alive, strangely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CO, I'm intrigued to know how you plan on paying tax when you're dead. Novel concept, that.

As for IHT...I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other, but I've had the "high house prices are OK for YOUR generation because YOU'RE going to inherit" thrown at me, pretty aggressively; which is a bit rich if a big chunk of it goes in IHT.

The other thing about IHT that I'm seeing more and more of is that as people live longer, their kids are so old by the time they inherit that the money effectively skips a generation. More and more people in their 50s and 60s have parents still going strong and living in the family home. I glanced at the "Mail" in Smiths today and the bit on IHT had a couple saying how much they wanted to be able to leave their wealth to their grandkids; sod the kids, it seems, let's just skip a generation and hand it straight to the grandkids.

Bit like poor old Prince Charles hanging around uselessly decade after decade while Mummy lives for ever and the country keeps saying let's just skip the old fart and have Wills instead!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder whether inheritance is having an impact on house prices.

I know several people in their 20s who have received large amounts of money from the sale of their grandparents property, so I don't think this can be unusual. They obviously use this money as a deposit for a FTB purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bart of Darkness

and the broadsheets are so much better? why should people be taxed twice on money they have worked for? how about cutting benefits?

= cutting votes to NuLab and their verminous acolytes.

In the interests of political balance, the tories are a bunch of **** s too! :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If IHT were abolished which kind of new or extra taxation would you like in its place?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Inheritance tax is the fairest tax ever invented. It taxes money owned by those who cannot spend it (the dead) which would otherwise go to those who did nothing to earn it (the beneficiaries). Inheritance tax should never be abolished.

It's a pertinent question though, George W Bush is currently on a crusade to abolish inheritance tax (or estate tax, as the Americans call it) in the US. It's just one of a number of changes he has sought to benefit only the rich. Perhaps this helped inspire the Daily Mail.

I guess if it had to be abolished, I would like to see capital gains tax on primary residence. In fact I would like to see this anyway!

frugalista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Inheritance tax is the fairest tax ever invented. It taxes money owned by those who cannot spend it (the dead) which would otherwise go to those who did nothing to earn it (the beneficiaries). Inheritance tax should never be abolished.

It's a pertinent question though, George W Bush is currently on a crusade to abolish inheritance tax (or estate tax, as the Americans call it) in the US. It's just one of a number of changes he has sought to benefit only the rich. Perhaps this helped inspire the Daily Mail.

I guess if it had to be abolished, I would like to see capital gains tax on primary residence. In fact I would like to see this anyway!

frugalista

Broadly I would say I agree with you frugalista, but I do have some big reservations about inheritance tax.

Whilst I agree that it is distasteful that little rich-kid trustafarians get to kick back their entire lives because daddy worked himself to the bone to create the wealth they are now squandering, I also realise that being able to pass things onto your kids, and give them the best start in life you can, is a major motivator for wealth creation. I include myself in this as well: call it selfish or excessively animalistic, which it in a sense is, but I do feel a strong parental urge to build wealth and pass it to my kids intact so they can do so in turn with their kids...ad infinitum.

This urge to build a legacy should ideally be less targeted...i.e. an individual should ideally be more interested in leaving a positive lasting legacy to his/her country, or even better all humanity...but I don't think we can deny the positive impact of wealth creation in the name of your offspring...this encourages hard work, prudence, self-denial and in my opinion underpins much of what being human is about..i.e. making sufficient provision for the future.

Now, to have that ability to provide for the future of your kids taxed punitively (40%) acts as a demotivator to wealth creation and accumulation - another example of the subtle encouragement by this government to turn us all into lazy, useless, state-dependent sh1ts.

I am undecided on the subject. Paying taxes on my earnings, desperately trying to build up a nest-egg that I can leave to my children (who I hope to bring up to be good, hard-working people) to help their start in life (not turn them into Nathan Barleys), and having this nest-egg taxed to the hilt again before I am even in the ground, just so GB can waste most of it...doesn't seem so 'fair' to me. It seems more like another example of state-appropriation of assets that do not belong to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Broadly I would say I agree with you frugalista, but I do have some big reservations about inheritance tax.

Whilst I agree that it is distasteful that little rich-kid trustafarians get to kick back their entire lives because daddy worked himself to the bone to create the wealth they are now squandering, I also realise that being able to pass things onto your kids, and give them the best start in life you can, is a major motivator for wealth creation. I include myself in this as well: call it selfish or excessively animalistic, which it in a sense is, but I do feel a strong parental urge to build wealth and pass it to my kids intact so they can do so in turn with their kids...ad infinitum.

I think this idea that your wealth will cascade down the generations needs to be examined a bit more carefully. The following was an argument I mead on another thread (apologies for cutting 'n' pasting it):

For a brief moment on your deathbed, perhaps you will have thoughts like

"I may be on my last legs, but at least because of my hard work, my son johnny and daughter jenny will be able to have private schools and BUPA healthcare and nice 5-bedroom detached houses and 4x4s unlike those other people unlucky enough to be born to lazy parents."

Fair enough I guess.

As the life support machine beeps faintly in the background and your vital energy ebbs gradually away, you then ponder what it means to extend that idea "over generations" as you say. In 150 years time you will probably have dozens and dozens of descendents, each a little bit richer by the luck of counting such a hard working person amongst their many many ancestors. In 500 years you will probably have thousands and thousands of descendents, each of whom can count amongst their genes an infinitesimally miniscule fraction which was inherited from you. And perhaps they each also have 0.0001 galactic credits which can be traced back to your diligent hard work.

My point was that people seem to think of their descendents in future generations as a small group of people whose lives will be materially affected by wealth transfer between generations. In fact, a simple mathematical model of genetics easily shows that after relatively few generations, you are overwhelmingly likely to be either the ancestor of practically everyone, or the ancestor of no-one at all.

I am undecided on the subject. Paying taxes on my earnings, desperately trying to build up a nest-egg that I can leave to my children (who I hope to bring up to be good, hard-working people) to help their start in life (not turn them into Nathan Barleys), and having this nest-egg taxed to the hilt again before I am even in the ground, just so GB can waste most of it...doesn't seem so 'fair' to me. It seems more like another example of state-appropriation of assets that do not belong to it.

If you don't trust the government to do something sensible with your money, I believe under the current system you can leave it to a charity, and thereby escape all inheritance tax.

frugalista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 333 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.