This 50p tax rate

jonginge

Is that the new Rapha hoodie?

rhext

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Looking at it another way, why should people get the unearned untaxed benefit of large amounts of income that their parents amassed - the parents earned it, not them. Generally, by the time you pop your clogs, any children will be in their 50s or 60s and should by then be standing on their own two feet.

Looking at that another way, why should the government get it? If it's mine, surely I have the right to decide what happens to it when I die?

Why should the government get any money you earn in that case? What's so special about dying?

I know that it's not the only "double tax" example, but it's a pretty stark one.

On dying, you've made no money, you've spent no money, you've actually done very little per se compared to the "justification" of other taxes (income/capital gains/VAT) - and then the state wants to help themsleves to nearly half. Frankly I'd rather that went to the people for whom I had spent my life working, earning (and paying tax) for, not for the government to waste.

The state do not help themselves to nearly half. I repeat, 94% of estates are not subject to this tax at all. And those that are are only taxed at 40% above a £325K/£650K threshold.

And almost everything is a 'double-tax': you pay income tax on the way in, VAT on the way out. Income tax on the way in, VAT and fuel duty on the way out. Income tax on the way in, Inheritance tax on the way out - don't see the difference myself.

jedster

As far as the 50p rate goes anyone who earns £150k a year and can't think of a way to save paying tax simply doesn't deserve to be on £150k a year. That's a FACT.

TailWindHome,

If you think that then you are an idiot and an ill-informed one to boot.

If you are employed and paid PAYE, then there is not much you can do about it legally. And even if you wanted to break the law (which I don't) you would need your employer to conspire in this. Happily for society, most large employers are simply not going to do this.

rjsterry

jedster wrote:

As far as the 50p rate goes anyone who earns £150k a year and can't think of a way to save paying tax simply doesn't deserve to be on £150k a year. That's a FACT.

TailWindHome,

If you think that then you are an idiot and an ill-informed one to boot.

If you are employed and paid PAYE, then there is not much you can do about it legally. And even if you wanted to break the law (which I don't) you would need your employer to conspire in this. Happily for society, most large employers are simply not going to do this.

Quite a big 'If' as many earning that amount will be self employed or won't be earning the full £150K as PAYE by one means or another. I wonder what proportion of those who earn £150K+ actually receive it all as a straight PAYE salary.

First.Aspect

Greg66 wrote:

Left says Govt = good; individual = bad; individual can't be trusted to spend their money properly so Govt takes it and spends it for them.

Right says Left says Govt = bad; individual = good; individual can be trusted to spend their money properly so Govt takes as little as possible.

Glad you cleared that up for us. I've been having trouble telling the difference between left and right wing recently, even at the extremes:

Left wing = military uniforms and a tash
Right wing = military uniforms and a tash

rhext

Greg66 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's only yours when you're living...

It's also mine to give away when I die. My assets are not on loan to me from the State during my lifetime.

Soviet Union, etc. etc.

Its pretty easy to give away your assets before your die so that the government doesn't take 40% of them... Its just another tax to avoid.

But it's quite diffcult to give them all away and yet retain sufficient means to live off. And if you don't trust your offspring not to shove you in an old folks' home on the first occasion you fail a memory test, giving away your home can be very difficult.

...these would be the same offspring you want make sure get every penny of your estate then.... :?:

greg66_tri_v2.0

Success in life is mostly to do with good timing, wouldn't you say?

tailwindhome

rjsterry wrote:

jedster wrote:

As far as the 50p rate goes anyone who earns £150k a year and can't think of a way to save paying tax simply doesn't deserve to be on £150k a year. That's a FACT.

TailWindHome,

If you think that then you are an idiot and an ill-informed one to boot.

If you are employed and paid PAYE, then there is not much you can do about it legally..

Don't be silly......what do you think all those accountants are paid to advise on......they're not all working for Philip Green and Vodafone...

cjcp

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Looking at it another way, why should people get the unearned untaxed benefit of large amounts of income that their parents amassed - the parents earned it, not them. Generally, by the time you pop your clogs, any children will be in their 50s or 60s and should by then be standing on their own two feet.

Looking at that another way, why should the government get it? If it's mine, surely I have the right to decide what happens to it when I die?

Why should the government get any money you earn in that case? What's so special about dying?

I know that it's not the only "double tax" example, but it's a pretty stark one.

On dying, you've made no money, you've spent no money, you've actually done very little per se compared to the "justification" of other taxes (income/capital gains/VAT) - and then the state wants to help themsleves to nearly half. Frankly I'd rather that went to the people for whom I had spent my life working, earning (and paying tax) for, not for the government to waste.

@rjsterry - IMO, that's not the way to look at it; there needs to be a reason to tax someone, not a reason not to tax someone. And that applies whether or not the offspring are able to stand on their own two feet. And it applies all the more so in the case of Labour governments, who do an excellent job of p!ssing our money up a rope.

MaxwellBygraves

Funny how if you claim benefits fraudulently (which is wrong) then your lazy, scum, workshy etc.

But if you want to pass on your vast inheritance to your lazy, workshy kids without paying tax (which is wrong) then your a top lad in some posters eyes...

rjsterry

cjcp wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Looking at it another way, why should people get the unearned untaxed benefit of large amounts of income that their parents amassed - the parents earned it, not them. Generally, by the time you pop your clogs, any children will be in their 50s or 60s and should by then be standing on their own two feet.

Looking at that another way, why should the government get it? If it's mine, surely I have the right to decide what happens to it when I die?

Why should the government get any money you earn in that case? What's so special about dying?

I know that it's not the only "double tax" example, but it's a pretty stark one.

On dying, you've made no money, you've spent no money, you've actually done very little per se compared to the "justification" of other taxes (income/capital gains/VAT) - and then the state wants to help themsleves to nearly half. Frankly I'd rather that went to the people for whom I had spent my life working, earning (and paying tax) for, not for the government to waste.

@rjsterry - IMO, that's not the way to look at it; there needs to be a reason to tax someone, not a reason not to tax someone. And that applies whether or not the offspring are able to stand on their own two feet. And it applies all the more so in the case of Labour governments, who do an excellent job of p!ssing our money up a rope.

Heh, I was stirring a little. My point was more that there is no less reason to tax inherited money than any other kind of income. The exchequer still needs to raise money somehow (to take TWH's earlier point) - if not IHT, then something else, and the 'social' reasons for IHT have also been put forward. We can argue about where the threshold should be, but that's different from whether IHT is somehow morally objectionable.

W1

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Funny how if you claim benefits fraudulently (which is wrong) then your lazy, scum, workshy etc.

But if you want to pass on your vast inheritance to your lazy, workshy kids without paying tax (which is wrong) then your a top lad in some posters eyes...

SO MUCH ENVY....

Benefit fraud is theft - hardly comparable to wishing to pay less tax.

It's a big presumption to say that anyone inheriting is lazy or workshy, isn't it? Apart from prejudice and conjecture you have nothing to support that view.

It isn't hard to come up with a hypotheical example where someone who loses a partner or parent is required to sell their home to pay an IHT bill if that partner or parent dies or is killed unexpectedly, just so the state can have another pound of flesh. I think a tax which does that is unacceptable.

tailwindhome

^

There are also many examples of siblings who shared ownership of a family home and had were hit by IHT as there is/was no equivalent of a spousal allowance.

cjcp

rjsterry wrote:

@rjsterry - IMO, that's not the way to look at it; there needs to be a reason to tax someone, not a reason not to tax someone. And that applies whether or not the offspring are able to stand on their own two feet. And it applies all the more so in the case of Labour governments, who do an excellent job of p!ssing our money up a rope.

Heh, I was stirring a little. My point was more that there is no less reason to tax inherited money than any other kind of income. The exchequer still needs to raise money somehow (to take TWH's earlier point) - if not IHT, then something else, and the 'social' reasons for IHT have also been put forward. We can argue about where the threshold should be, but that's different from whether IHT is somehow morally objectionable.

IHT is not based on income, it's based on the value of the estate, so it's applied when in the hands of the estate, not in the hands of the beneficiary. If it was the latter, then it would be an income tax. IHT is not the same. IHT causes a lot of distress. Income tax and CGT and what not, you can plan for; not always the case with IHT.

From a moral standpoint, there's no reason why the government should benefit from the size of someone's estate instead of family members.

W1

TailWindHome wrote:

^

There are also many examples of siblings who shared ownership of a family home and had were hit by IHT as there is/was no equivalent of a spousal allowance.

Indeed - in a modern world I cannot see any justification for having a spousal allowance, but not sibling/partner/children one.

rhext

cjcp wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

@rjsterry - IMO, that's not the way to look at it; there needs to be a reason to tax someone, not a reason not to tax someone. And that applies whether or not the offspring are able to stand on their own two feet. And it applies all the more so in the case of Labour governments, who do an excellent job of p!ssing our money up a rope.

Heh, I was stirring a little. My point was more that there is no less reason to tax inherited money than any other kind of income. The exchequer still needs to raise money somehow (to take TWH's earlier point) - if not IHT, then something else, and the 'social' reasons for IHT have also been put forward. We can argue about where the threshold should be, but that's different from whether IHT is somehow morally objectionable.

IHT is not based on income, it's based on the value of the estate, so it's applied when in the hands of the estate, not in the hands of the beneficiary. If it was the latter, then it would be an income tax. IHT is not the same. IHT causes a lot of distress. Income tax and CGT and what not, you can plan for; not always the case with IHT.

From a moral standpoint, there's no reason why the government should benefit from the size of someone's estate instead of family members.

So it's a tax on dead people, not their beneficiaries. OK, they're not going to miss it, why not let the government have it all?

What evidence do you have for the 'lot of distress' assertion: most estates don't pay it! There are a few special circumstances which could easily be mitigated - but that shouldn't affect the principle.

cjcp

rhext wrote:

cjcp wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

@rjsterry - IMO, that's not the way to look at it; there needs to be a reason to tax someone, not a reason not to tax someone. And that applies whether or not the offspring are able to stand on their own two feet. And it applies all the more so in the case of Labour governments, who do an excellent job of p!ssing our money up a rope.

Heh, I was stirring a little. My point was more that there is no less reason to tax inherited money than any other kind of income. The exchequer still needs to raise money somehow (to take TWH's earlier point) - if not IHT, then something else, and the 'social' reasons for IHT have also been put forward. We can argue about where the threshold should be, but that's different from whether IHT is somehow morally objectionable.

IHT is not based on income, it's based on the value of the estate, so it's applied when in the hands of the estate, not in the hands of the beneficiary. If it was the latter, then it would be an income tax. IHT is not the same. IHT causes a lot of distress. Income tax and CGT and what not, you can plan for; not always the case with IHT.

From a moral standpoint, there's no reason why the government should benefit from the size of someone's estate instead of family members.

So it's a tax on dead people, not their beneficiaries. OK, they're not going to miss it, why not let the government have it all?

What evidence do you have for the 'lot of distress' assertion: most estates don't pay it! There are a few special circumstances which could easily be mitigated - but that shouldn't affect the principle.

Let's turn it around: what evidence do you have that most estates don't pay it? If you have it, that's fine, but the point about distress remains: people suddenly find themselves having to deal with a tax liability (even though it's a tax on the estate) which, the day before, they didn't think they';d have to deal with. Think sudden death of a relative + having to deal with the sale of an asset to pay for the tax liability on an estate. It's not hard to arrive at distress.

And it's also possible to incur CGT liability after IHT.

And it's the sudden death issue which means that IHT is not something which can always be mitigated.

As regards the principle, you seem very keen to tax people. Why? Why should people's estates be taxed?

rhext

cjcp wrote:

rhext wrote:

cjcp wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

@rjsterry - IMO, that's not the way to look at it; there needs to be a reason to tax someone, not a reason not to tax someone. And that applies whether or not the offspring are able to stand on their own two feet. And it applies all the more so in the case of Labour governments, who do an excellent job of p!ssing our money up a rope.

Heh, I was stirring a little. My point was more that there is no less reason to tax inherited money than any other kind of income. The exchequer still needs to raise money somehow (to take TWH's earlier point) - if not IHT, then something else, and the 'social' reasons for IHT have also been put forward. We can argue about where the threshold should be, but that's different from whether IHT is somehow morally objectionable.

IHT is not based on income, it's based on the value of the estate, so it's applied when in the hands of the estate, not in the hands of the beneficiary. If it was the latter, then it would be an income tax. IHT is not the same. IHT causes a lot of distress. Income tax and CGT and what not, you can plan for; not always the case with IHT.

From a moral standpoint, there's no reason why the government should benefit from the size of someone's estate instead of family members.

So it's a tax on dead people, not their beneficiaries. OK, they're not going to miss it, why not let the government have it all?

What evidence do you have for the 'lot of distress' assertion: most estates don't pay it! There are a few special circumstances which could easily be mitigated - but that shouldn't affect the principle.

Let's turn it around: what evidence do you have that most estates don't pay it? If you have it, that's fine, but the point about distress remains: people suddenly find themselves having to deal with a tax liability (even though it's a tax on the estate) which, the day before, they didn't think they';d have to deal with. Think sudden death of a relative + having to deal with the sale of an asset to pay for the tax liability on an estate. It's not hard to arrive at distress.

And it's also possible to incur CGT liability after IHT.

And it's the sudden death issue which means that IHT is not something which can always be mitigated.

As regards the principle, you seem very keen to tax people. Why? Why should people's estates be taxed?

Evidence - http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/inheritanc ... entary.pdf

I'm not keen to tax people, I just accept that tax is a necessary evil and has to be raised somehow. I also strongly believe that as a society we need a mechanism to stop wealth concentrating into the hands of a relatively small number of families down through the generations. If it were me I would:

1) Raise the threshold to something a bit more 'significant' (eg £1M).

2) Apply the threshold by recipient rather than on the estate (ie a proper inheritance tax rather than an estate tax, which is what we have at the moment).

3) Change the 'nil-rate' rules to accommodate the fact that marriage is not the only partnership arrangement these days.

So if you have an estate of £100M, you don't need to pay any tax on it provided you pay no single recipient more than £1M.

MaxwellBygraves

W1 wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Funny how if you claim benefits fraudulently (which is wrong) then your lazy, scum, workshy etc.

But if you want to pass on your vast inheritance to your lazy, workshy kids without paying tax (which is wrong) then your a top lad in some posters eyes...

SO MUCH ENVY....

Benefit fraud is theft - hardly comparable to wishing to pay less tax.

It's a big presumption to say that anyone inheriting is lazy or workshy, isn't it? Apart from prejudice and conjecture you have nothing to support that view.

It isn't hard to come up with a hypotheical example where someone who loses a partner or parent is required to sell their home to pay an IHT bill if that partner or parent dies or is killed unexpectedly, just so the state can have another pound of flesh. I think a tax which does that is unacceptable.

No envy involved. I do alright. I just want to help those at the bottom.

You have missed my point completely. It's a big presumption to say anyone that claims benefits is lazy, but that get's bandied about. Not even necessarily by yourself but I think it's fair to say that there is that prevailing attitude amongst many.

The point is that if you decide not to do a days work and, in your hypothetical situation pay no IHT because it has been abolished, just live off Mum and Dads vast fortune then your a top geezer and your happy with people doing this? The same goes for tax evasion which came up the other day. As an aside, as I have already pointed out, tax evasion (that's illegal evasion not avoidance) is much bigger than the bill for benefit fraud. Neither are right, but why is one mercilessly pursued in the media and the other largely ignored when it poses a bigger problem?

rjsterry

cjcp wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

@rjsterry - IMO, that's not the way to look at it; there needs to be a reason to tax someone, not a reason not to tax someone. And that applies whether or not the offspring are able to stand on their own two feet. And it applies all the more so in the case of Labour governments, who do an excellent job of p!ssing our money up a rope.

Heh, I was stirring a little. My point was more that there is no less reason to tax inherited money than any other kind of income. The exchequer still needs to raise money somehow (to take TWH's earlier point) - if not IHT, then something else, and the 'social' reasons for IHT have also been put forward. We can argue about where the threshold should be, but that's different from whether IHT is somehow morally objectionable.

IHT is not based on income, it's based on the value of the estate, so it's applied when in the hands of the estate, not in the hands of the beneficiary. If it was the latter, then it would be an income tax. IHT is not the same. IHT causes a lot of distress. Income tax and CGT and what not, you can plan for; not always the case with IHT.

From a moral standpoint, there's no reason why the government should benefit from the size of someone's estate instead of family members.

From what I've seen, the lack of a will causes just as much distress. You can plan for these things just as much as you can write a will. Sure there's the scenario where Mum finally pops her clogs after a last few happy years in a Sussex cottage bought in the '50s and in which Mum's offspring were raised. Because of the overinflated property prices in the SE, said cottage is now worth, say £450K, so IHT of £50K is due (40% of £125K). Offspring don't have a spare £50K, so have to sell 'the family home'. Mind you, they do get the remaining £400K (less costs) to split between them.

I know it's difficult to have to sell off part of their family history, but people have to do this below the threshold as well, when they just need the money or have no use for the property. BTW, at least 75% of properties in the UK would fall below the IHT threshold.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/housingmarket/livetables/ See Table 532, All dwellings 2010.

rick_chasey

Can't believe I haven't mentioned the Nordic model yet.

My standards are slipping.

W1

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

No envy involved. I do alright. I just want to help those at the bottom.

You have missed my point completely. It's a big presumption to say anyone that claims benefits is lazy, but that get's bandied about. Not even necessarily by yourself but I think it's fair to say that there is that prevailing attitude amongst many.

The point is that if you decide not to do a days work and, in your hypothetical situation pay no IHT because it has been abolished, just live off Mum and Dads vast fortune then your a top geezer and your happy with people doing this? The same goes for tax evasion which came up the other day. As an aside, as I have already pointed out, tax evasion (that's illegal evasion not avoidance) is much bigger than the bill for benefit fraud. Neither are right, but why is one mercilessly pursued in the media and the other largely ignored when it poses a bigger problem?

You didn't say "claims benefits". You said "fraudulently".

If you are of the type who doesn't want to work, you could do that off the state or off mum and dad. The current IHT rules do not prevent someone from inheriting enough not to have to work again. So I'd rather someone was work-shy due to the bank of mum and dad, than from the state. That's the current state of play anyway.

I'm not sure that anyone has advocated people being lazy if they inherit their parents assets - and as I say, you have no evidence for such an assertion apart from blind prejudice.

My problem with IHT is that it is a tax which has the potential to add a significant amount of stress to an already difficult and upsetting situtation. It can be avoided, so what (really) is the point? It doesn't hit the super wealthy, all it in effect does is hit those who have benefitted (on paper only) from house price inflation, or who haven't the understanding to undertake tax mitigation, or a combination of the two. Further, it discriminates against those who aren't married but still have children. Is it really of benefit to the country to force families to move from their homes on the death of a parent?

W1

rjsterry wrote:

Sure there's the scenario where Mum finally pops her clogs after a last few happy years in a Sussex cottage bought in the '50s and in which Mum's offspring were raised. Because of the overinflated property prices in the SE, said cottage is now worth, say £450K, so IHT of £50K is due (40% of £125K). Offspring don't have a spare £50K, so have to sell 'the family home'. Mind you, they do get the remaining £400K (less costs) to split between them.

I know it's difficult to have to sell off part of their family history, but people have to do this below the threshold as well, when they just need the money or have no use for the property. BTW, at least 75% of properties in the UK would fall below the IHT threshold.

That's all very rosy - if there are still young children living in the home, but a parent gets hit by a bus in their early 40s, are you still OK with the fact that the state forces them out in order to pay some more tax? I'm not.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

Heh, I was stirring a little. My point was more that there is no less reason to tax inherited money than any other kind of income. The exchequer still needs to raise money somehow (to take TWH's earlier point) - if not IHT, then something else, and the 'social' reasons for IHT have also been put forward. We can argue about where the threshold should be, but that's different from whether IHT is somehow morally objectionable.

But that is the point it is morally objectionable. That a "death tax" can potentially cripple the life of a living person is objectionable (see W1's post).

The person who has died paid their taxes, bought their home, paid off their mortgage, served or functioned in society in whatever productive way they could. They worked most of their life to benefit and support their family. Their hope was to leave something behind so that this dedication could continue.

The passing of any productive life is sad for those that loved that person's life. And you think that the best thing the Government can do is slap a tax on that passing and what they've left behind.

You do not think that is morally objectionable? Wow.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Sure there's the scenario where Mum finally pops her clogs after a last few happy years in a Sussex cottage bought in the '50s and in which Mum's offspring were raised. Because of the overinflated property prices in the SE, said cottage is now worth, say £450K, so IHT of £50K is due (40% of £125K). Offspring don't have a spare £50K, so have to sell 'the family home'. Mind you, they do get the remaining £400K (less costs) to split between them.

I know it's difficult to have to sell off part of their family history, but people have to do this below the threshold as well, when they just need the money or have no use for the property. BTW, at least 75% of properties in the UK would fall below the IHT threshold.

That's all very rosy - if there are still young children living in the home, but a parent gets hit by a bus in their early 40s, are you still OK with the fact that the state forces them out in order to pay some more tax? I'm not.

Heh, is there such a thing as a bleeding heart conservative? As I said before, I'm not suggesting that there's no need for some adjustment to the threshold, but that's different from saying that the whole concept is flawed. We are also talking about a small percentage of a minority that fits your scenario. To extend your example, if the parent is in their 40s then they will more than likely still be paying off a mortgage, so IHT, will be some way down the list of priorities unless they have sorted out sufficient life insurance.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

You do not think that is morally objectionable? Wow.

I don't see what morality has to do with this at all.

The 'death' isn't being taxed the inheritance is. For the beneficiary it is 'unearned income', there's no reason of morality for it not to be in the scope of taxation.

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

You do not think that is morally objectionable? Wow.

I don't see what morality has to do with this at all.

The 'death' isn't being taxed the inheritance is. For the beneficiary it is 'unearned income', there's no reason of morality for it not to be in the scope of taxation.

Morality has everything to do with it. Morality ensures that the action or decision is 'just and fair'. 'Just and fair' is a core principle of any legal decision or legislation. It is not just or fair to tax those on low incomes more than those on high incomes, hence we have a progressive tax system.

Therefore morality should an influencing factor.

'Unearned Income'
If my Father wants to pay me a salary for being his son, chooses to hand me his car, house or his estate when living is that not also an 'unearned income'? It is an inheritance of a kind but is not taxed. The key component of inheritance tax is death, therefore I feel it correct to call it a 'death tax'.

jonginge

DonDaddyD wrote:

'Unearned Income'
If my Father wants to pay me a salary for being his son, chooses to hand me his car, house or his estate when living is that not also an 'unearned income'? It is an inheritance of a kind but is not taxed. The key component of inheritance tax is death, therefore I feel it correct to call it a 'death tax'.

Those examples could be liable for inheritance tax (or income tax for the 'salary'). It depends on the value and timing (before death) of the gift.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

You do not think that is morally objectionable? Wow.

I don't see what morality has to do with this at all.

The 'death' isn't being taxed the inheritance is. For the beneficiary it is 'unearned income', there's no reason of morality for it not to be in the scope of taxation.

Morality has everything to do with it. Morality ensures that the action or decision is 'just and fair'. 'Just and fair' is a core principle of any legal decision or legislation. It is not just or fair to tax those on low incomes more than those on high incomes, hence we have a progressive tax system.

Therefore morality should an influencing factor.

'Unearned Income'
If my Father wants to pay me a salary for being his son, chooses to hand me his car, house or his estate when living is that not also an 'unearned income'? It is an inheritance of a kind but is not taxed. The key component of inheritance tax is death, therefore I feel it correct to call it a 'death tax'.

Well above a threshold, you have to declare it, so yes it is taxed - unless he gives it to you in a big brown envelope stuffed with fifties, it will show up in your bank account.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cgt/intro/gifts-inherit-divorce.htm

Clever Pun

rjsterry wrote:

so IHT, will be some way down the list of priorities unless they have sorted out sufficient life insurance.

It's a legal requirement of having a mortgage isn't it? Life insurance is required so the banks can get their money back.

Just reading the last couple of pages here and the debate falls into two categories as I see it. Slightly older posters or thos who have sadly lost family members and had to deal with the government clawing at you while you're grieving. The otherside seems to be younger and more idealistic...

Firmly in the shouldn't be taxed twice camp personally, the rest of the baggage that comes with that is looming