To think it’s unfair that some people get inheritance while others start with nothing?

You won't get any support on here, but yes you are right. Inherited wealth is the biggest driver of continued social inequality.

Its utterly hypocritical that the same people who are against private schools would be furious if they could not inherit from their parents or pass on inheritance to their children.

Oh dear. I was hoping to give the benefit of the doubt.

@blueshoes this poster is not deliberate...

You know what I mean @blossomtoes.

Unless you are hard of thinking, you are being disingenuous and deliberately obtuse. If this is your best riposte, then you have effectively agreed with me.

When did we start paying our tax in dollars?

I strongly believe that people like her, and it's a huge proportion of society, are the reason for our state of affairs - want to have it nice for themselves but someone else to pay for it.

Well said. Too often when someone is asking whether to take the higher paying more demanding job with a longer commute, many posters pipe up and say Life's Too Short.

These posters are not entitled to be funded by the tax dollars of those who take the harder road with a view to leaving something for their dcs. In fact, it would be rational not to take the harder road if the IHT tax regime grabs so much of the testator's pension and estate.

One wonders where will Labour find these higher rate tax payers who fund a disproportionate amount of the tax take throughout the tax payer's lifetime. It makes sense not to put in the hours at work and/or to retire early.

It chopped of the first half of my message (should check first...) - but around where they work, £300k would be a very cheap house. Where middle child works that wouldn't get you a cupboard. Even with a mortgage 4x salary, it'd be £104k.

£26k is only just over £100k, so even with the split of £500k (and thought it was less than that?) would be short.
Anyway, as I said, I was answering the original, if there was no tax-free amount.

I think that's part of the problem- the public want scandi level services but to pay what within Europe is pretty low tax - and because wages are not high for all but the top 7% and housing is stratospheric in all but the cheaper areas both buying and renting along with high utilities ( shit weather doesn't help) and high childcare you can see why people want low tax because at the moment it doesn't balance at all.

I think we can presume. It would be very unusual for a sole breadwinner not to maximise their income.

Can't presume - he might be or he might be not. He might be covering what they consume from state service or he might be not. It does not change the fact that she is choosing to work less to pay less tax whilst wanting to tax others more.

Presumably her children’s father works too.

This posted is net recipient of state support by choice. She works part only because anything more she earns would attract 40% income tax. Being on 50k she pays about 10.5k of income tax and NI. Assuming she has two school age kids their education costs 15k pa. This is before we start talking about anything else, NHS, police etc etc.

So those of us who work much more and are net contributors fund her kids education, her healthcare etc through our taxes.

Whilst making a choice to work less and contribute less tax, she also wants us to pay higher IHT, or abolish inheritances all together, so state services are funded better.

I strongly believe that people like her, and it's a huge proportion of society, are the reason for our state of affairs - want to have it nice for themselves but someone else to pay for it.

Whose money is she taking? And how?

What @nearlylovemyusername means is, you have the opportunity to work full time and ear more, so you could leave more to your DC. You’d rather continue to work part time and take the money from those that work extra for their own DC.

With regard to IHT, if I end up in the very fortunate position to pay it, I’ll be very happy to. The DCs will still inherit ONE MILLION POUNDS tax free, PLUS 60% of anything over a million pounds.

I agree @Anonym00se . Plus you (and I) have the option to gift money any time we like.
As for comparing other countries, well it's almost impossible isn't it? Given the differing levels of exception and actual services. We just need to have a grown up conversation about how we do it here in the UK. And we seem incapable, and the politicians appear scared.

The table of rates is very misleading howev er as Beligum showing 80% in fact if you leave the maximum sum, highest band to children it is only 30%. Whereas my band £325k is lower than Belgium and I pay 40%. so on that table I would put the UK massively higher than Belgium's so called 80%. Most people leave their money to their children.

US which looks like us is yes 40% but only for a couple once you leave over US$26m or $13m is you are single like I am, rather than my paltry £325,000 IHT free allowance.

www.expatica.com/be/finance/taxes/inheritance-tax-belgium-1000086/

Having lived in Denmark for 20 months it works very differently ( personally I think much better) but requires a completely different mindset to what I feel much of the UK would accept. High wages, higher pensions, very high tax, relatively high services, high amounts of good social housing - both parts of a couple kind of expected to work, hence far far lower call on public benefits, cheap childcare, - the problem in the uk is all the right wing media would make a massive hoo ha about well off pensioners being asked to pay quite a lot more tax without the benefits ( to them) of cheap childcare or good social housing provision in most cases - many Brits simply do not think in terms of ' society ' as a whole and the Danes very much do - one thing they would like though is its very much Denmark for the Danes , my own view was that if you were not Danish you were a bit of a second class citizen . I liked it a lot but some aspects of it are not the liberal utopia people think it is.

@Blossomtoes as ever, the devil is in the detail

In any case, UK tax rates, when you take into account graduate loan repayments and pensions now being included in IHT as well as farms and businesses are approaching Scandi levels.

But you can't include those things and then compare them to "Scandi levels" without those things included. That would be completely financially illiterate.

Yes it does, as I said it was in response to the list of countries which another poster linked to showing international rates of IHT. In any case, UK tax rates, when you take into account graduate loan repayments and pensions now being included in IHT as well as farms and businesses are approaching Scandi levels.

I’m not interested in petty point scoring so will leave it there.

This doesn’t mention Denmark then?

Actually I didn’t, I pointed out that the UK is an outlier in terms of IHT.

Another poster pointed out that many other countries had higher rates of IHT to which I responded that all except the USA and Denmark (which kick in at a far higher level or a lower rate) do it by recipient not the value of the estate. So yes, in terms of IHt the UK is an outlier.

You were the one who mentioned Denmark first. It’s a worthwhile comparison when it suits you.

I’m not sure how worthwhile a comparison of the UK is to Denmark, one of the world’s most highly taxed countries which is famous for its free university education and excellent public services etc etc.

But cgt is now 24% in the UK for most transactions while the top rate of income tax at 45% plus NIC’s means that many top rate tax payers are paying over 50%.