This 50p tax rate

1…5678911»

Comments

  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,373
    jedster wrote:
    a link
    http://www.tayloremmet.co.uk/pdf...tax/ ... ptions.pdf

    Got a 404 on that link
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    TailWindHome wrote:
    Can't see the image there MM

    Tell me it's Sharktopus.


    It is isn't it.

    About time too.

    It sure is baby.
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • jedster
    jedster Posts: 1,717
    try googling

    "IHT and dependent children"
    bottom of the first page
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    jedster wrote:
    [
    HTH
    It does, thanks.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    In answer to earlier comments:-

    "simple as that" - the reasoning behind not agreeing with IHT is just that. The issue is complex though.

    Unfairness of IHT.

    It was introduced to hit the very wealthy - it now affects a large percentage due to overinflated house prices. Either the band has to increase or house prices have to fall. Negative equity won't go down well with voters so the band needs to increase.
    The inheritance has already been taxed. Possibly twice. On gain and possibly on savings after that. (Property is bought using taxed income).
    Those collecting may be in trouble. IHT needs to be paid within 6 months. A will can take up to a year to be resolved. How does that work?

    Solutions.

    Raise the level of IHT. (Reduces taxes)
    Increase VAT. Keep food, clothing & utilities VAT free. (Increases taxes but not on necessities)
    Increase tax allowance to 15k to help the poor. (Reduces taxes)
    Keep current higher tax levels. (New levels increase taxes)

    Any tax solution will take money out of people's pockets.
    Or you could try cutting Goverment spending but that idea didn't go down too well.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,373
    daviesee wrote:
    In answer to earlier comments:-

    "simple as that" - the reasoning behind not agreeing with IHT is just that. The issue is complex though.

    Unfairness of IHT.

    It was introduced to hit the very wealthy - it now affects a large percentage due to overinflated house prices. Either the band has to increase or house prices have to fall. Negative equity won't go down well with voters so the band needs to increase.
    The inheritance has already been taxed. Possibly twice. On gain and possibly on savings after that. (Property is bought using taxed income).
    Those collecting may be in trouble. IHT needs to be paid within 6 months. A will can take up to a year to be resolved. How does that work?

    Solutions.

    Raise the level of IHT. (Reduces taxes)
    Increase VAT. Keep food, clothing & utilities VAT free. (Increases taxes but not on necessities)
    Increase tax allowance to 15k to help the poor. (Reduces taxes)
    Keep current higher tax levels. (New levels increase taxes)

    Any tax solution will take money out of people's pockets.
    Or you could try cutting Goverment spending but that idea didn't go down too well.
    Government spending is being cut, it's just that the savings are being spent on debt reduction rather than tax reduction.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    rjsterry wrote:
    Government spending is being cut, it's just that the savings are being spent on debt reduction rather than tax reduction.

    I had concluded that the cuts were to supplement tax increases in order to cut the debts.
    Any tax cuts that I mentioned above were to try and balance the fairness of the hit.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    http://tinyurl.com/6ve4oqn
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,121
    W1 wrote:
    jedster wrote:
    If you are an unmarried couple and have dependent children then you can protect them with a simple will using a form bought in WHSmiths. To be honest if you have enough assets to fall foul of IHT then you can afford to spend a couple of hundred quid getting a lawyer to do it for you.
    Please explain how this avoids IHT.
    You don't even need to be unmarried.

    If the family house is the main asset and husband & wife own it legally as 'joint tenants', change the ownership to 'tenants in common' and both change your wills so your half of the house goes to (usually) your kids and not your spouse. That way only half of the value of the house get used against each of the husband and wife's IHT exempt allowance (normally, the a husband/wife passes wills their assets to their spouse so when the second one dies, the full value of the house is included in that person's estate). The surviving parent just has to trust their kids won't do anything silly with the half of the house that they inherit.

    As I mentioned before, this also reduces a person's assets when the council means test for care home fees.

    Cost my parents less than £200 to get this done.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]

Categories