Unpopular Opinions

1…2526283031…54

Comments

  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,227
    Stevo_666 said:

    ballysmate said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.

    God point... here's another unpopular opinion... inheritance shouldn't exist at all. When you pass, everything goes back to the state.

    And this has nothing to do with the fact that my dad passed just before the pandemic and only left shares... ;)


    ... and another one (although this might actually be popular): in order to acquire dogs in built up areas, individuals should get a licence
    Get to 67 and spend like a sailor and then get the state to look after you?
    Another winner!
    That's the obvious problem - when everyone knows that whatever you have left will be confiscated, you may well piddle it up the wall and leave yourself destitute when old. Another really bad idea on the tax front.
    I know I wouldn't leave myself destitute and living 20 years of poverty just to stick it to the man. Would you?

    And the average age of dying is 81 - if the "children" they are leaving it to are waiting till then to get on the housing ladder, I think it might be a bit late.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,813
    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    ballysmate said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.

    God point... here's another unpopular opinion... inheritance shouldn't exist at all. When you pass, everything goes back to the state.

    And this has nothing to do with the fact that my dad passed just before the pandemic and only left shares... ;)


    ... and another one (although this might actually be popular): in order to acquire dogs in built up areas, individuals should get a licence
    Get to 67 and spend like a sailor and then get the state to look after you?
    Another winner!
    That's the obvious problem - when everyone knows that whatever you have left will be confiscated, you may well piddle it up the wall and leave yourself destitute when old. Another really bad idea on the tax front.
    I know I wouldn't leave myself destitute and living 20 years of poverty just to stick it to the man. Would you?

    And the average age of dying is 81 - if the "children" they are leaving it to are waiting till then to get on the housing ladder, I think it might be a bit late.
    Not a case of sticking it to anyone. Perfectly natural reaction if you know it is all going to the state unless you're a virtue signaller, one of these people who volunteers to pay more tax ;) Or you just give to your kids well before you die to avoid it - same end effect.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,227
    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    ballysmate said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.

    God point... here's another unpopular opinion... inheritance shouldn't exist at all. When you pass, everything goes back to the state.

    And this has nothing to do with the fact that my dad passed just before the pandemic and only left shares... ;)


    ... and another one (although this might actually be popular): in order to acquire dogs in built up areas, individuals should get a licence
    Get to 67 and spend like a sailor and then get the state to look after you?
    Another winner!
    That's the obvious problem - when everyone knows that whatever you have left will be confiscated, you may well piddle it up the wall and leave yourself destitute when old. Another really bad idea on the tax front.
    I know I wouldn't leave myself destitute and living 20 years of poverty just to stick it to the man. Would you?

    And the average age of dying is 81 - if the "children" they are leaving it to are waiting till then to get on the housing ladder, I think it might be a bit late.
    Not a case of sticking it to anyone. Perfectly natural reaction if you know it is all going to the state unless you're a virtue signaller, one of these people who volunteers to pay more tax ;) Or you just give to your kids well before you die to avoid it - same end effect.
    So you would choose to live in poverty yourself?
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.

    Yes.

    Should also apply to gifts from living parents.
    Policing that will solve the unemployment problem and make Xmas more exciting
    It's not that easy to launder money.
    Let's look at Grandparents
    what allowance per person are you going to allow at Xmas
    Can Granny pay for a school trip?
    what about helping out with school uniform
    shift worker needs to fix his car, can granny pay?
    Granny rents a ten bed villa in Tuscany, who decides the value of her family joining for a week
    I would have thought it would be quite easy to subsidise your kids lives by £10k a year
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    kingstongraham said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.

    Inheritance tax is already too high - see our old friend Laffer

    Make it 20% on everything with no exemptions.
    It's only 0.7% of all tax take, so not overwhelmingly a tax raising measure.
    I think that is the point

    Britain's richest man died without paying a penny. 20% of £10-20bn would be handy
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    ballysmate said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.

    God point... here's another unpopular opinion... inheritance shouldn't exist at all. When you pass, everything goes back to the state.

    And this has nothing to do with the fact that my dad passed just before the pandemic and only left shares... ;)


    ... and another one (although this might actually be popular): in order to acquire dogs in built up areas, individuals should get a licence
    Get to 67 and spend like a sailor and then get the state to look after you?
    Another winner!
    That's the obvious problem - when everyone knows that whatever you have left will be confiscated, you may well piddle it up the wall and leave yourself destitute when old. Another really bad idea on the tax front.
    I know I wouldn't leave myself destitute and living 20 years of poverty just to stick it to the man. Would you?

    And the average age of dying is 81 - if the "children" they are leaving it to are waiting till then to get on the housing ladder, I think it might be a bit late.
    Not a case of sticking it to anyone. Perfectly natural reaction if you know it is all going to the state unless you're a virtue signaller, one of these people who volunteers to pay more tax ;) Or you just give to your kids well before you die to avoid it - same end effect.
    So you would choose to live in poverty yourself?
    Will you be bequeathing all your worldly assets to the state as a matter of principle regardless of what the law says?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,227
    shortfall said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    ballysmate said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.

    God point... here's another unpopular opinion... inheritance shouldn't exist at all. When you pass, everything goes back to the state.

    And this has nothing to do with the fact that my dad passed just before the pandemic and only left shares... ;)


    ... and another one (although this might actually be popular): in order to acquire dogs in built up areas, individuals should get a licence
    Get to 67 and spend like a sailor and then get the state to look after you?
    Another winner!
    That's the obvious problem - when everyone knows that whatever you have left will be confiscated, you may well piddle it up the wall and leave yourself destitute when old. Another really bad idea on the tax front.
    I know I wouldn't leave myself destitute and living 20 years of poverty just to stick it to the man. Would you?

    And the average age of dying is 81 - if the "children" they are leaving it to are waiting till then to get on the housing ladder, I think it might be a bit late.
    Not a case of sticking it to anyone. Perfectly natural reaction if you know it is all going to the state unless you're a virtue signaller, one of these people who volunteers to pay more tax ;) Or you just give to your kids well before you die to avoid it - same end effect.
    So you would choose to live in poverty yourself?
    Will you be bequeathing all your worldly assets to the state as a matter of principle regardless of what the law says?
    Planning to spend most of it.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    kingstongraham said:

    shortfall said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    ballysmate said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.

    God point... here's another unpopular opinion... inheritance shouldn't exist at all. When you pass, everything goes back to the state.

    And this has nothing to do with the fact that my dad passed just before the pandemic and only left shares... ;)


    ... and another one (although this might actually be popular): in order to acquire dogs in built up areas, individuals should get a licence
    Get to 67 and spend like a sailor and then get the state to look after you?
    Another winner!
    That's the obvious problem - when everyone knows that whatever you have left will be confiscated, you may well piddle it up the wall and leave yourself destitute when old. Another really bad idea on the tax front.
    I know I wouldn't leave myself destitute and living 20 years of poverty just to stick it to the man. Would you?

    And the average age of dying is 81 - if the "children" they are leaving it to are waiting till then to get on the housing ladder, I think it might be a bit late.
    Not a case of sticking it to anyone. Perfectly natural reaction if you know it is all going to the state unless you're a virtue signaller, one of these people who volunteers to pay more tax ;) Or you just give to your kids well before you die to avoid it - same end effect.
    So you would choose to live in poverty yourself?
    Will you be bequeathing all your worldly assets to the state as a matter of principle regardless of what the law says?
    Planning to spend most of it.
    😀
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,025
    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.

    Yes.

    Should also apply to gifts from living parents.
    Policing that will solve the unemployment problem and make Xmas more exciting
    It's not that easy to launder money.
    Let's look at Grandparents
    what allowance per person are you going to allow at Xmas
    Can Granny pay for a school trip?
    what about helping out with school uniform
    shift worker needs to fix his car, can granny pay?
    Granny rents a ten bed villa in Tuscany, who decides the value of her family joining for a week
    I would have thought it would be quite easy to subsidise your kids lives by £10k a year
    There would be an allowance for kids stuff, so a box of chocolates or school uniform is fine, but a house would be a bit much.

    Granny paying for adult children's extravagant holidays sounds taxable to me though. Again, a few allowances to reduce admin burden.

    Think of it like the gifts policy you probably have at work. Client buys you a bottle of wine to celebrate, fine. Client buys lunch in suitable restaurant, fine depending on a few things. Client pays for your two week holiday in the Caribbean, not fine.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    100% inheritance tax if done properly would solve so so many problems.

    In the land of equal opportunity how well you do should be to do as much as possible with your own decision making and not that of something you have no control over.

    Whether you make the most of that opportunity or not is your business.

    It’s not socialism as it’s equal opportunity not equal outcome.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Or generally a wealth based tax system
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,490
    ballysmate said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.

    God point... here's another unpopular opinion... inheritance shouldn't exist at all. When you pass, everything goes back to the state.

    And this has nothing to do with the fact that my dad passed just before the pandemic and only left shares... ;)


    ... and another one (although this might actually be popular): in order to acquire dogs in built up areas, individuals should get a licence
    Get to 67 and spend like a sailor and then get the state to look after you?
    Another winner!
    Basically my plan.
    Blow it down to the threshold, but more of a taper than a cliff edge.
    Then taper down from there. In my experience spending drops dramatically from about 85 on.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    Or generally a wealth based tax system

    It is easy to point to France as somewhere that a wealth tax failed but can you give examples of where it has been successfully implemented?
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,025
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Or generally a wealth based tax system

    It is easy to point to France as somewhere that a wealth tax failed but can you give examples of where it has been successfully implemented?
    There's a stronger argument in favour of land based wealth taxes as it encourages more efficient use of the land.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,593
    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    ballysmate said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.

    God point... here's another unpopular opinion... inheritance shouldn't exist at all. When you pass, everything goes back to the state.

    And this has nothing to do with the fact that my dad passed just before the pandemic and only left shares... ;)


    ... and another one (although this might actually be popular): in order to acquire dogs in built up areas, individuals should get a licence
    Get to 67 and spend like a sailor and then get the state to look after you?
    Another winner!
    That's the obvious problem - when everyone knows that whatever you have left will be confiscated, you may well piddle it up the wall and leave yourself destitute when old. Another really bad idea on the tax front.
    I know I wouldn't leave myself destitute and living 20 years of poverty just to stick it to the man. Would you?

    And the average age of dying is 81 - if the "children" they are leaving it to are waiting till then to get on the housing ladder, I think it might be a bit late.
    It doesn't have to be children who inherit though does it? My daughters are just about to inherit a share of my wife's aunt's house as she didn't have any children of her own. It will give them both a modest amount to put down a deposit on a house of their own when the time comes (straight away for my eldest) which is what she was really keen to do for them along with another niece and nephew. With the benefit of living in a relatively cheap area for property in means my daughters can pick up a decent 3 bed semi at a decent mortgage rate as they'll only need about a 70% mortgage.

    Actually, we've got a weird situation with the Will in that case. The aunt still had a mortgage on her house but money in a savings account set aside to pay the mortgage off on her death. According to the solicitor dealing with it all the savings account and the house both count towards her estate and therefore push it over the inheritance tax threshold. This doesn't sound right to me as either you count the savings in which case the bank still owned the equivalent value of the house at the time of death or you take the full value of the house in which case the savings have been used to clear the remaining mortgage. I'm not convinced the solicitor is correct but it's not my business.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,593
    rick_chasey said:

    100% inheritance tax if done properly would solve so so many problems.

    In the land of equal opportunity how well you do should be to do as much as possible with your own decision making and not that of something you have no control over.

    Whether you make the most of that opportunity or not is your business.

    It’s not socialism as it’s equal opportunity not equal outcome.

    These things would only ever work if everyone is prepared to contribute equally too though and, like it or not, there is a significant proportion of the population that are happy to take as much as they can without putting back in. In a perfect world everyone would have equality of wealth but would also contribute equally to society unfortunately that isn't human nature.
  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    I'm not at all on board with inheritance tax, sorry.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,025
    Pross said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    ballysmate said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.

    God point... here's another unpopular opinion... inheritance shouldn't exist at all. When you pass, everything goes back to the state.

    And this has nothing to do with the fact that my dad passed just before the pandemic and only left shares... ;)


    ... and another one (although this might actually be popular): in order to acquire dogs in built up areas, individuals should get a licence
    Get to 67 and spend like a sailor and then get the state to look after you?
    Another winner!
    That's the obvious problem - when everyone knows that whatever you have left will be confiscated, you may well piddle it up the wall and leave yourself destitute when old. Another really bad idea on the tax front.
    I know I wouldn't leave myself destitute and living 20 years of poverty just to stick it to the man. Would you?

    And the average age of dying is 81 - if the "children" they are leaving it to are waiting till then to get on the housing ladder, I think it might be a bit late.
    It doesn't have to be children who inherit though does it? My daughters are just about to inherit a share of my wife's aunt's house as she didn't have any children of her own. It will give them both a modest amount to put down a deposit on a house of their own when the time comes (straight away for my eldest) which is what she was really keen to do for them along with another niece and nephew. With the benefit of living in a relatively cheap area for property in means my daughters can pick up a decent 3 bed semi at a decent mortgage rate as they'll only need about a 70% mortgage.

    Actually, we've got a weird situation with the Will in that case. The aunt still had a mortgage on her house but money in a savings account set aside to pay the mortgage off on her death. According to the solicitor dealing with it all the savings account and the house both count towards her estate and therefore push it over the inheritance tax threshold. This doesn't sound right to me as either you count the savings in which case the bank still owned the equivalent value of the house at the time of death or you take the full value of the house in which case the savings have been used to clear the remaining mortgage. I'm not convinced the solicitor is correct but it's not my business.
    In comparison one of her peers will work away for years to try to scrape together enough money for a deposit, and as she saves the money, she will pay tax on it.

    Consider two statements:
    - Everyone should be able to buy a house in their lifetime
    - Everyone should be able to inherit, without tax, from their parents.

    The consequence of this is that each generation ends up with more houses than previous one which can't be sustainable.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,593
    My unpopular opinion, one I've mentioned several times on various threads over the years, is that we spend far too much of our limited NHS budget and medical research on prolonging life i.e. long-term treatment of conditions that are going to eventually result in the person's death which in turn is creating knock on issues with infrastructure / housing supply etc., social care costs and pension provision.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Pross said:

    rick_chasey said:

    100% inheritance tax if done properly would solve so so many problems.

    In the land of equal opportunity how well you do should be to do as much as possible with your own decision making and not that of something you have no control over.

    Whether you make the most of that opportunity or not is your business.

    It’s not socialism as it’s equal opportunity not equal outcome.

    These things would only ever work if everyone is prepared to contribute equally too though and, like it or not, there is a significant proportion of the population that are happy to take as much as they can without putting back in. In a perfect world everyone would have equality of wealth but would also contribute equally to society unfortunately that isn't human nature.
    How do you see this “not everyone contributing equally” manifesting?

    I’m entirely relaxed about people spending everything they have in their last days on outrageous fripperies.
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Pross said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    ballysmate said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.

    God point... here's another unpopular opinion... inheritance shouldn't exist at all. When you pass, everything goes back to the state.

    And this has nothing to do with the fact that my dad passed just before the pandemic and only left shares... ;)


    ... and another one (although this might actually be popular): in order to acquire dogs in built up areas, individuals should get a licence
    Get to 67 and spend like a sailor and then get the state to look after you?
    Another winner!
    That's the obvious problem - when everyone knows that whatever you have left will be confiscated, you may well piddle it up the wall and leave yourself destitute when old. Another really bad idea on the tax front.
    I know I wouldn't leave myself destitute and living 20 years of poverty just to stick it to the man. Would you?

    And the average age of dying is 81 - if the "children" they are leaving it to are waiting till then to get on the housing ladder, I think it might be a bit late.
    It doesn't have to be children who inherit though does it? My daughters are just about to inherit a share of my wife's aunt's house as she didn't have any children of her own. It will give them both a modest amount to put down a deposit on a house of their own when the time comes (straight away for my eldest) which is what she was really keen to do for them along with another niece and nephew. With the benefit of living in a relatively cheap area for property in means my daughters can pick up a decent 3 bed semi at a decent mortgage rate as they'll only need about a 70% mortgage.

    Actually, we've got a weird situation with the Will in that case. The aunt still had a mortgage on her house but money in a savings account set aside to pay the mortgage off on her death. According to the solicitor dealing with it all the savings account and the house both count towards her estate and therefore push it over the inheritance tax threshold. This doesn't sound right to me as either you count the savings in which case the bank still owned the equivalent value of the house at the time of death or you take the full value of the house in which case the savings have been used to clear the remaining mortgage. I'm not convinced the solicitor is correct but it's not my business.
    this is in no way meant as a criticism but it is an interesting case study in human nature that they are looking to minimise their tax liabilities and do not feel a desire to share their windfall with those less fortunate than themselves
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,593
    surrey_commuter said:

    Pross said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    ballysmate said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.

    God point... here's another unpopular opinion... inheritance shouldn't exist at all. When you pass, everything goes back to the state.

    And this has nothing to do with the fact that my dad passed just before the pandemic and only left shares... ;)


    ... and another one (although this might actually be popular): in order to acquire dogs in built up areas, individuals should get a licence
    Get to 67 and spend like a sailor and then get the state to look after you?
    Another winner!
    That's the obvious problem - when everyone knows that whatever you have left will be confiscated, you may well piddle it up the wall and leave yourself destitute when old. Another really bad idea on the tax front.
    I know I wouldn't leave myself destitute and living 20 years of poverty just to stick it to the man. Would you?

    And the average age of dying is 81 - if the "children" they are leaving it to are waiting till then to get on the housing ladder, I think it might be a bit late.
    It doesn't have to be children who inherit though does it? My daughters are just about to inherit a share of my wife's aunt's house as she didn't have any children of her own. It will give them both a modest amount to put down a deposit on a house of their own when the time comes (straight away for my eldest) which is what she was really keen to do for them along with another niece and nephew. With the benefit of living in a relatively cheap area for property in means my daughters can pick up a decent 3 bed semi at a decent mortgage rate as they'll only need about a 70% mortgage.

    Actually, we've got a weird situation with the Will in that case. The aunt still had a mortgage on her house but money in a savings account set aside to pay the mortgage off on her death. According to the solicitor dealing with it all the savings account and the house both count towards her estate and therefore push it over the inheritance tax threshold. This doesn't sound right to me as either you count the savings in which case the bank still owned the equivalent value of the house at the time of death or you take the full value of the house in which case the savings have been used to clear the remaining mortgage. I'm not convinced the solicitor is correct but it's not my business.
    this is in no way meant as a criticism but it is an interesting case study in human nature that they are looking to minimise their tax liabilities and do not feel a desire to share their windfall with those less fortunate than themselves
    I've brought them up badly - obviously under the Ugo system they should be offering their money to buy shelter for the homeless as they are relatively well off.

    They haven't mentioned it at all to be fair, it's more a confusion on my part as it appears to be taxing the same money twice and I'm not sure the solicitor has interpreted things correctly (or my mother-in-law, as executor, is misunderstanding what she has been told by them which is a possibility).
  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Pross said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    ballysmate said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.

    God point... here's another unpopular opinion... inheritance shouldn't exist at all. When you pass, everything goes back to the state.

    And this has nothing to do with the fact that my dad passed just before the pandemic and only left shares... ;)


    ... and another one (although this might actually be popular): in order to acquire dogs in built up areas, individuals should get a licence
    Get to 67 and spend like a sailor and then get the state to look after you?
    Another winner!
    That's the obvious problem - when everyone knows that whatever you have left will be confiscated, you may well piddle it up the wall and leave yourself destitute when old. Another really bad idea on the tax front.
    I know I wouldn't leave myself destitute and living 20 years of poverty just to stick it to the man. Would you?

    And the average age of dying is 81 - if the "children" they are leaving it to are waiting till then to get on the housing ladder, I think it might be a bit late.
    It doesn't have to be children who inherit though does it? My daughters are just about to inherit a share of my wife's aunt's house as she didn't have any children of her own. It will give them both a modest amount to put down a deposit on a house of their own when the time comes (straight away for my eldest) which is what she was really keen to do for them along with another niece and nephew. With the benefit of living in a relatively cheap area for property in means my daughters can pick up a decent 3 bed semi at a decent mortgage rate as they'll only need about a 70% mortgage.

    Actually, we've got a weird situation with the Will in that case. The aunt still had a mortgage on her house but money in a savings account set aside to pay the mortgage off on her death. According to the solicitor dealing with it all the savings account and the house both count towards her estate and therefore push it over the inheritance tax threshold. This doesn't sound right to me as either you count the savings in which case the bank still owned the equivalent value of the house at the time of death or you take the full value of the house in which case the savings have been used to clear the remaining mortgage. I'm not convinced the solicitor is correct but it's not my business.
    this is in no way meant as a criticism but it is an interesting case study in human nature that they are looking to minimise their tax liabilities and do not feel a desire to share their windfall with those less fortunate than themselves
    I've brought them up badly - obviously under the Ugo system they should be offering their money to buy shelter for the homeless as they are relatively well off.

    They haven't mentioned it at all to be fair, it's more a confusion on my part as it appears to be taxing the same money twice and I'm not sure the solicitor has interpreted things correctly (or my mother-in-law, as executor, is misunderstanding what she has been told by them which is a possibility).
    It's a great opportunity for your daughters, Pross. Make sure they grab it with both hands.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,610
    The value of the debt will be taken off the value of the estate in calculating any IHT liability.
    As the property is not being left to direct descendants, only the standard nil rate bands will apply. If the aunt had been married that may mean 2 x £325,000 before the IHT liability. If she never married, then the excess of the £325k will be taxed at 40%.
    So Pross's kids may feel that there has been an adequate amount of tax paid on their windfall already.

    100% IHT is a really stupid idea as it would force a lot of small family businesses to the wall on the death of an owner. How is that possibly sensible? It is why Business Property Relief was introduced before rick was born.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    rick_chasey said:

    100% inheritance tax if done properly would solve so so many problems.

    In the land of equal opportunity how well you do should be to do as much as possible with your own decision making and not that of something you have no control over.

    Whether you make the most of that opportunity or not is your business.

    It’s not socialism as it’s equal opportunity not equal outcome.

    Sounds like socialism to me.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,593
    Dorset_Boy said:

    The value of the debt will be taken off the value of the estate in calculating any IHT liability.
    As the property is not being left to direct descendants, only the standard nil rate bands will apply. If the aunt had been married that may mean 2 x £325,000 before the IHT liability. If she never married, then the excess of the £325k will be taxed at 40%.
    So Pross's kids may feel that there has been an adequate amount of tax paid on their windfall already.

    100% IHT is a really stupid idea as it would force a lot of small family businesses to the wall on the death of an owner. How is that possibly sensible? It is why Business Property Relief was introduced before rick was born.

    Thanks, I thought that first bit might be the case. I don't think it would hit the £325k threshold, she was married and divorced but then got back with her ex-husband in her later years though they didn't re-marry. She inherited his estate when he died a few years ago so anything he left is included within what she has left. It's an area where I suspect many of us don't really know the rules and you find yourselves dealing with it at a difficult time so have to assume the professionals are advising correctly.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    100% inheritance tax would be a godsend for the equity release mob. Sell your crib to release the equity, live the good life there rent free and when you die the taxman gets FA.
    Nobody on here works for an equity release company do they?
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    Pross said:

    My unpopular opinion, one I've mentioned several times on various threads over the years, is that we spend far too much of our limited NHS budget and medical research on prolonging life i.e. long-term treatment of conditions that are going to eventually result in the person's death which in turn is creating knock on issues with infrastructure / housing supply etc., social care costs and pension provision.

    Whilst there is a Darwinian selection in NHS treatment priorities, I agree that too much money is spent on patients that only have a month or two to live. Some might argue that those 1-2 months might mean a lot to them and their families, but others would argue that with the same money you might be able to give 20 years of decent quality life to someone else...
    Bargaining on time... a difficult one, but a good opinion, bravo!
    left the forum March 2023
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,813
    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    ballysmate said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.

    God point... here's another unpopular opinion... inheritance shouldn't exist at all. When you pass, everything goes back to the state.

    And this has nothing to do with the fact that my dad passed just before the pandemic and only left shares... ;)


    ... and another one (although this might actually be popular): in order to acquire dogs in built up areas, individuals should get a licence
    Get to 67 and spend like a sailor and then get the state to look after you?
    Another winner!
    That's the obvious problem - when everyone knows that whatever you have left will be confiscated, you may well piddle it up the wall and leave yourself destitute when old. Another really bad idea on the tax front.
    I know I wouldn't leave myself destitute and living 20 years of poverty just to stick it to the man. Would you?

    And the average age of dying is 81 - if the "children" they are leaving it to are waiting till then to get on the housing ladder, I think it might be a bit late.
    Not a case of sticking it to anyone. Perfectly natural reaction if you know it is all going to the state unless you're a virtue signaller, one of these people who volunteers to pay more tax ;) Or you just give to your kids well before you die to avoid it - same end effect.
    So you would choose to live in poverty yourself?
    I could certainly make sure enough is passed on to my kid (which almost any sane parent will tell you is where it should go) that my IHT would be nicely mitigated, without putting myself in poverty - as IHT is based on capital values whereas I'll still have an income.

    In any event, the bigger issue is funding care in later life. Many people will end up paying it to care homes and not leave anything for the tax man. That can be planned for as well, though.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,813
    surrey_commuter said:

    kingstongraham said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.

    Inheritance tax is already too high - see our old friend Laffer

    Make it 20% on everything with no exemptions.
    It's only 0.7% of all tax take, so not overwhelmingly a tax raising measure.
    I think that is the point

    Britain's richest man died without paying a penny. 20% of £10-20bn would be handy
    Shows how easy it is to avoid, sorry mitigate :smile:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]

Categories