Shadow Play Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) @SH Panda If I understand you correctly your opinion is if Tony Benn, or anyone else for that matter, did pay fees to reduce inheritance tax “that’s probably going too far.” Given the measures he took were relatively complicated I think it’s fair to say there is a good chance he would require the use of a legal / tax advisor. Alternatively, you stated “if you can take reasonable steps yourself to limit your tax burden - fair enough”. I know you’re not interested in the specifics of Benn’s Will and I only mentioned them again to give an example of why I am a little perplexed regarding your apparent stand on reducing inheritance tax. Are you saying you think it’s OK for someone who is educated in matters of inheritance tax to take reasonable measures themselves to avoid inheritance tax but you think it is “probably going too far” for someone who is not educated in these matters to pay someone to get legal and financial advice? I’m not sure that is a fair way of doing things. Like you said everyone will have their own line and that’s fair enough. Just curious why you feel there is a distinction from someone who pays to limit their inheritance tax and someone well versed in these matters who doesn’t require assistance? Edited March 29 by Shadow Play 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 1 hour ago, Granny Danger said: Helping your son/daughter get on the property ladder would be seen as a bad thing by very few people IMO. The general tone of this thread appears to be those who don't stand to inherit anything of note don't want others to be able to do the same. This example seems to fit that mould - "I'm not in a position to do something so someone else being able to do it is bad" It comes across not as philanthropic, but of jealousness. Talk of 100% inheritance tax is mental. "That man leaving his house to his children is the problem" is a cousin of "that immigrant stealing your job is the problem" Removing a modest inheritance from the majority of people will only widen the gap - those with the huge estates will be able to transfer the wealth whilst still alive. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 1 hour ago, Shadow Play said: @SH Panda If I understand you correctly Are you actually reading all that? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Play Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Just now, Sergeant Wilson said: Are you actually reading all that? I must admit I did. It’s at times like this I wish I was interested in golf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMDP Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Yeah, add me to the list of not just wanting a hefty inheritance tax but incredibly tight regulation and hefty punishments for avoiding. Personally, I'm lucky in my family that my parents are both in good health despite being older. I am one of six and and my brother will be in charge of everything when my parents pass. It will be really modest and I couldn't give a shit, I'm just glad I have been lucky to have the parents I have. We have encouraged them to spend everything they have in their advancing years so they can enjoy them but it's not in their nature to do that. For my missus, it's a slightly different position. Her father is minted and her and her siblings stand to inherit millions. You can already see it becoming shitty between family members and some of them talking as if the poor c**t is already dead. I really hope he gets rid of loads of it to charity tbh and fucks them all off. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 2 hours ago, JMDP said: Yeah, add me to the list of not just wanting a hefty inheritance tax but incredibly tight regulation and hefty punishments for avoiding. Personally, I'm lucky in my family that my parents are both in good health despite being older. I am one of six and and my brother will be in charge of everything when my parents pass. It will be really modest and I couldn't give a shit, I'm just glad I have been lucky to have the parents I have. We have encouraged them to spend everything they have in their advancing years so they can enjoy them but it's not in their nature to do that. For my missus, it's a slightly different position. Her father is minted and her and her siblings stand to inherit millions. You can already see it becoming shitty between family members and some of them talking as if the poor c**t is already dead. I really hope he gets rid of loads of it to charity tbh and fucks them all off. If that truly is the case, why are you worried about a little bit of internicine squabbling ? When the f-i-l pops his clogs, your missus should just rake in her share of the millions (hopefully not divorcing you before inheriting) and just tell her arsehole sibs to do one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentGuerin Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) 6 hours ago, Granny Danger said: Helping your son/daughter get on the property ladder would be seen as a bad thing by very few people IMO. Of course. That's the whole point. The urge to help your kids is understandable. But it's also something that is unquestionably damaging to society. I get that people in the position to do so need to push that out of their minds, but it's a fact. Helping your kid makes you feel good. Opening your mind up to "This is pushing my kid, who has probably already enjoyed the advantages of relative wealth throughout childhood, to the front of the property queue ahead of poor fucks who need to spend decades sacrificing like f**k", probably wouldn't make people feel good. Unless there's something wrong with them. It's inherently (!) unfair and snowballs through generations. Edited March 29 by VincentGuerin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentGuerin Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 5 hours ago, Todd_is_God said: Talk of 100% inheritance tax is mental. "That man leaving his house to his children is the problem" is a cousin of "that immigrant stealing your job is the problem" Absolute nonsense. Having seen your contributions on other threads, I won't be bothering getting into a well of pedantry and obfuscation with you.. But in terms of having an equal society where unearned advantage is not inbuilt into the system, people being gifted the most accessible form of wealth while others need to give money to people like that to ever own a place to live, then, yes, people passing on homes (for home, read wealth) to their kids is 100% a problem. comparing it to racist dog-whistling is utterly risible. You can label things any way you want. It's an easy punch to label people like me as jealous, and there's no 100% way to be sure that's not an element of it. However, denying that families hoarding wealth through inheritance, which is often snowballed through marriage, creates an inherently unequal society is simply nonsense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Manhattan Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 5 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said: The urge to help your kids is understandable. But it's also something that is unquestionably damaging to society. I get that people in the position to do so need to push that out of their minds, but it's a fact. For those in a position to do so (not me, for the avoidance of doubt) what's the difference between helping your kids while you're alive, as opposed to doing so after you're dead? Surely all that a 100% inheritance tax would accomplish would be to skew things towards the first option. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentGuerin Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Just now, Doctor Manhattan said: For those in a position to do so (not me, for the avoidance of doubt) what's the difference between helping your kids while you're alive, as opposed to doing so after you're dead? Surely all that a 100% inheritance tax would accomplish would be to skew things towards the first option. There's no difference. The passing on of wealth perpetuates inequality. There's no way around that. 100% inheritance tax is not happening, and it's not worth using as a talking point, as some posters on the thread are looking for the most extreme views to discredit the basic idea. But there should be societal controls on how much an individual can benefit from the lottery of life at the expense of others. British newspapers (owned by billionaires) label my kind of thinking negatively. Politic of envy. Idealism. COMMUNISM. Whatever. The basic principle is one that is very hard to argue against. Who your parents are should not be the defining factor of your economic circumstances. Yet, currently, it's a massive factor. Too big. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxRover Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 5 hours ago, Shadow Play said: I must admit I did. It’s at times like this I wish I was interested in golf Don’t, just don’t! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 23 minutes ago, Doctor Manhattan said: For those in a position to do so (not me, for the avoidance of doubt) what's the difference between helping your kids while you're alive, as opposed to doing so after you're dead? Surely all that a 100% inheritance tax would accomplish would be to skew things towards the first option. As far as I know, you have to ensure you don't die within 5 (?) years of making your gift. It may also need to be over a certain value before it would attract attention. So, pretty vague, there, then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Manhattan Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 14 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said: There's no difference. The passing on of wealth perpetuates inequality. There's no way around that. 100% inheritance tax is not happening, and it's not worth using as a talking point, as some posters on the thread are looking for the most extreme views to discredit the basic idea. But there should be societal controls on how much an individual can benefit from the lottery of life at the expense of others. British newspapers (owned by billionaires) label my kind of thinking negatively. Politic of envy. Idealism. COMMUNISM. Whatever. The basic principle is one that is very hard to argue against. Who your parents are should not be the defining factor of your economic circumstances. Yet, currently, it's a massive factor. Too big. This argument seems to imply that not only should government/society/whoever dictate what happens to your money after you die, they can also proscribe what you can do with it at any time while you're still alive. Where's the line to be drawn between buying your kids an ice cream and buying them a house? (Or at least helping out with the deposit?) The distribution of wealth (both absolute and relative) is a subject that long predates communism, and maybe even capitalism itself. Did you ever read Aristophanes' "Plutus"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentGuerin Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 1 minute ago, Doctor Manhattan said: This argument seems to imply that not only should government/society/whoever dictate what happens to your money after you die, they can also proscribe what you can do with it at any time while you're still alive. Where's the line to be drawn between buying your kids an ice cream and buying them a house? (Or at least helping out with the deposit?) The distribution of wealth (both absolute and relative) is a subject that long predates communism, and maybe even capitalism itself. Did you ever read Aristophanes' "Plutus"? Oh my God. No offence, mate. This isn't worth my time. I'm on this forum to annoy Hibs and Aberdeen fans. Cherio. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Manhattan Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 1 minute ago, Jacksgranda said: As far as I know, you have to ensure you don't die within 5 (?) years of making your gift. It may also need to be over a certain value before it would attract attention. So, pretty vague, there, then. I think it's 7 years, but it was more a question about the principle than the practice. If I won a million on the lottery, what's the difference between me gifting it to my kids now (assuming I don't die soon afterwards) as opposed to waiting until I die and seeing 40% of it disappear in IHT? Questions about social equity, while obviously relatively inseparable, weren't uppermost in my mind when I posed the original question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Manhattan Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 2 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said: Oh my God. No offence, mate. This isn't worth my time. I'm on this forum to annoy Hibs and Aberdeen fans. Cherio. A laudable aim. Shame, though, I found it a nice distraction from the tedium of Wrexham v Mansfield. Toodle pipski. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 9 minutes ago, Doctor Manhattan said: This argument seems to imply that not only should government/society/whoever dictate what happens to your money after you die, they can also proscribe what you can do with it at any time while you're still alive. Where's the line to be drawn between buying your kids an ice cream and buying them a house? (Or at least helping out with the deposit?) The distribution of wealth (both absolute and relative) is a subject that long predates communism, and maybe even capitalism itself. Did you ever read Aristophanes' "Plutus"? What the hell size of ice cream are you buying where you require a deposit? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Just now, Jacksgranda said: What the hell size of ice cream are you buying where you require a deposit? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 1 minute ago, Jacksgranda said: What the hell size of ice cream are you buying where you require a deposit? ...and where can I buy one? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Manhattan Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 1 minute ago, Jacksgranda said: What the hell size of ice cream are you buying where you require a deposit? I bought two small 99's not long back from a van in Luss, and in came to £12. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.