Inheritance Tax

I loathe inheritance tax , unless it’s for super wealthy ie in the multiple millions etc
i have worked hard my whole life , my home whilst cheap ish when I brought it is now worth a lot , I’ve already paid tax on every penny I spent on it and the fact that I can’t leave it to my child with out paying tax is maddness it will have to be sold tax paid etc
better Would be that my grandchildren could be raised there etc ,

Wildly ill informed or deliberately misleading?

There. Are. No. IHT changes. Except. For. Agricultural. Relief.
Honestly this thread is wildly ill informed.

They got a whole load of tax free inheritance too. So if they had that and also worked so much they couldn’t see their kids it’s a poor show I reckon.

So your comment about disincentivising tax payers is nonsense then. Because you haven’t paid tax on a big chunk of income. Not applicable to most people, is it?
Actually, it’s not even applicable to you. Labour haven’t changed IHT for anyone but farmers.

Based on the figures given, I am guessing you must be talking about Singapore, which has a GDP per capital of USD 84,000 and a population of 6 million.

Singapore became wealthy thanks to its strong political leadership during a period of strong economic growth, by leveraging its very strategic location on the coast in Asia, and its heritage as a trading hub dating back to the British empire. These factors allowed Singapore to benefit greatly from economic growth in all of Asia and to become a major financial centre for the region. Also, Singapore is in effect a rich city-state on the coast of a continent, sort of like what London might be if it were its own country and well-located on the Atlantic coast of Europe.

Even if you are not talking about Singapore, it must be a high-GBP per capital country: most countries with such low tax rates have weak public services, leaving its weaker and older people vulnerable to poverty, suffering and early death.

The UK needs to take its actions based on today’s starting point for the UK. GBP per capital is USD 49,000, and we do not have large sovereign wealth funds backing our state pensions, and we have the infrastructure that we have. The UK could have been a sort of gateway between the English-speaking world and Europe in some ways, but we are an island nation and our near neighbours are not experiencing strong economic growth and development the way Asia was and to some extent still is. There is no large country in the world with taxes as low as 24% income / 9% VAT / 0% IHT that also has strong public services and good infrastructure. Singapore is amazing, but we should not delude ourselves into seeing that as a model for the UK.

You do know the the IHT rules were exactly the same under the Conservatives (unless you’re a farmer)? This isn’t a Labour policy.

Four million children in this country go to school hungry. That is unfair, not mega rich people having to pay tax on a fortune they no longer need because they’re dead.

Wow. I wonder when your children are adults they will appreciate this or if they will wish they had a more present parent.

Thank you. I am glad you see that.

The government there is also competent. It has planned for the aging population well in advance, including healthcare and aged care needs. There are projects with a 30 year horizon.

It is a different philosophy from a welfare state. The community is supported and steps in. I don't see people living rough. The middle classes are a solid band.

Not everyone's cup of tea but by and large you do keep everything you earn or own, other than income tax (top rate is 24%), VAT (9%) and property tax.

No it is not just earned income. It is also inherited assets from another jurisdiction that does not have IHT 😇As I mentioned, inheritance tax is avoidable. Let's see how much RR gets out of it before Labour is voted out.

No they have the good fortune to be born to parents who save and invest and don't spend every penny they get.

What a wonderful system. It's only natural that a parent would want to leave any accumulated wealth to their DC and DGC.

Of course they do once when alive and once when they die.

RR seems incompetent to realise when she changes policy those affected will also take evasive policy. Just think about her Nom Dom policy. Those Non Dom's will simply move to Portugal or other countries that have a more favourable tax system for them, then the government will get nothing in from them. She's too stupid to see the obvious. I've got farming friends who immediately after the budget are now planning trusts.

That is very naive. A combine harvester and just one tractor is very expensive and most farms would have 2 tractors. The equipment in a milking parlour is very expensive. The land and the farm house plus any farm cottages and livestock too will also get included in the valuation it's not just the house and land. Farmers are asset rich and cash poor. If a farmer dies and his DC has 10 years to pay then that DC dies before the 10 years is up and the DGC inherits the farm they would be paying off two lots of IT on the same farm. Smallholdings probably won't be affected. RR included smallholdings in the official figures. This skews the figures. Labour MP's stood at the large NUF conference just over a month before they got elected in the run up to the election and told farmers they would not change IT on farms. Then the first chance they got they broke that promise to the farmers. Labour are lying scum.

I'm all for hard work and having businesses and building things and not relying on benefits -but am also keen on having a society where public services function and everything doesn't come down to how much dosh you have- it's caused some real inequalities in things like dentistry , private renting, etc - and hence comments such as ' hopefully we will get rid of labour government and reverse things such as IHT changes- meanwhile I'm busily protecting my multiple houses etc - '.
nope , I cannot agree at all and that's precisely one of the reasons why we are in this mess and gvt needing to grab against assets to be able to spend out after sod all has been invested in recent years or spaffed on ludicrous ideological shit like Brexit.
otherwise you just end up with a non functioning country, sick people and a dog eat dog mentality - and yes I do think that whilst those with plenty have to bear the load and my heart isn't exactly bleeding at people like Rees Mogg having to pay more , I also think there also needs to be some work on looking at the benefit system and why it actually disincentivises a lot of lower paid workers, especially ones with children and renting.

I'm hoping another party might lower it or increase the amount over £1m.

You hope what will be reversed? IHT hasn’t changed except for farms has it?

I gift the £3k money each year to DC and £250 to DGC. Then I gift them out of my regular incomings which is all perfectly legal. If my DS gets married I'll gift the maximum I can. I'll pay for their holidays too. I DH and I die together they'll have to pay IT. I just really hope Labour get kicked out and it gets reversed by whoever gets in next. I've also put 4 houses into a limited company and will be taking legal advice if I can just add DC and DGC as shareholders. Then I think they'd only pay 19 percent as they take money out. Not sure of what else I can do. I'll probably gift a house to both DGS's and hope to live 7 more years or not sure if Labour are planning to change it to 10 years. They'll have to pay tax on the rest, but I'll be leaving some to the Cats Protection League so that will reduce IT.

I’m sharing my money with adult DC now and will continue to do so - we are not in the bracket for inheritance tax anyway as only own a modest property worth around 250k

@blueshoes I don’t think there are many people who can pay outright for their children’s (plural) houses from just their earned income. If I’m honest, I think you probably should have gone for a better work life balance, plus spending the money would have helped the economy. In any case, that’s going to be a very small group, so I don’t think we need to base economic policy on it n

This is a sweeping statement about the incentives of people who are motivated to generate wealth.

I can tell you that I will take a much more relaxed to my career if I did not have children. I am working hard to set them up and leave them something. As it is, they will have my assets early to keep Labour IHT mitts off (if Labour around for longer than 4 years).

It will have been nice to spend more time with dcs during their earlier years like many people on mn prioritise. As it is, I will just have to make do with paying for their homes upfront when they are in their 20s and 30s. Wonder how many future 'broad shoulders' will see the light and enjoy a more scenic route to retirement. There goes the future tax payers.

Do not underestimate how much tax shapes the behaviours of people with the ability to generate and protect wealth. The future also does not have to be in the UK. Not expecting any violins.

Indeed it is but the fact remains they're paying a lot of money and they had no say whatsoever due to a combination of lack of availability and their needs. I didn't know there were so many levels of dementia until this happened. Not sure if that's the right terminology. But the fact is this could happen to any one of us. They are more than prepared to pay. But they thought they'd saved to get the best care. The home is actually very good but it would never have been on their radar due to where it is. On originally contacting other more local ones before they knew the severity, they were coming up full and the assessors wouldn't even come out as they had no space and they already had a waiting list.

It’s clearly more complex if a bog standard care home was unable to deal with their needs.

My relative has dementia