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

I won't receive an inheritance. I have brilliant parents, who are involved in my Son's life and love him dearly. I can confide in them in anything and I know in the back of my mind, that if I lost everything I'd always have a place to stay until I got back on my feet and food at least.

I'm luckier than so many, even quite a few who receive inheritance too.

Inheritance isn't everything. Of course, it's not fair but we have to be thankful for what we have.

@Totallymessed that's a brilliant retort! I wonder if Katie Hopkins posts on MNs...

This thread has certainly been revealing about how many caring, sharing Mumsnetters are extremely privileged and utterly divorced from most people's reality. So easy when you have nothing to worry about!

When did I say I frittered money away? I was a single parent for almost two decades and was on the bones of my arse for several years. Being able to buy a pint of milk or a loaf of bread, not both, is an experience you never forget. It makes you appreciate not being there any more.

Great post.... having lost my parents young, I've lost the security that you get from having parents as an adult. The idea that if you lost everything tomorrow, your house fell down or your husband leaves you, there's somewhere you can go....I'd rather have my parents than the money but the money gave me a little bit of security.

I hate to remind you, but you did post that your parents had no shortage of nice cars and expensive holidays when you were growing up. It's too late to start faking the four yorkshiremen sketch.

I am just in the situation now of inheriting from my Mum’s estate - she was a nurse but sold her ordinary house at the top of the property market. The money mostly went on care home fees but there is still a reasonable bit left for my sibs and I.
But I contrast my situation with my single parent friend who rents and will have nothing to leave to her child. I am using my inheritance to help pay uni fees for my kids and improve the house we own.
Already my kids will be in a ‘better’ position than hers and I feel uncomfortable and I guess sad about this. I had thought if I had got more money of sharing some with them, but felt it would create a weird dynamic. I don’t have an answer but I understand why this topic has been posted

This thread has certainly been revealing about how many caring, sharing Mumsnetters are extremely privileged and utterly divorced from most people's reality. So easy when you have nothing to worry about!

I think the lack of comprehension is enlightening & depressing!

I mean I've gone from an hypocritical, non tax paying grabby scrounger to a privileged champagne socialist in mere minutes!

I hate to correct you but I wasn’t talking about when I was growing up, I was talking about their retirement. And it was their money, not mine.

Apologies, when I said you only worked part time to avoid paying tax, I did miss out the important word more tax. I'm surprised you didn't realise, but maybe you're just being disingenuous.

You choose to only work part time because you prefer to reduce the amount of tax you pay (that goes towards such things as schools and the NHS), and you're wealthy enough to be comfortable anyway.

You're a hypocrite, but your posts have been educational, so thank you. I'll certainly remember them on future threads when our resident champagne socialists gather to lecture the plebs on how paying tax is so important (except not for them, obviously).

@Totallymessed explain how I am a hypocrite?

I have worked since I was 17 & supported myself throughout university. I then worked full time paying high rate tax for many years. Since having dc I have been p/t & apart from maternity leave have always worked. I'm a higher rate taxpayer now despite the fact I am p/t. I could work f/t (my job can be demanding) but I don't want to & one of the reasons is because anything I do extra is taxed at 40%. I think the income tax bands should be unfrozen. Again what is hypocritical?

You accused me of this "But you think you should get your bit from the money people have saved working full time for decades.*

Yet you are chastising me for working p/t! How much tax would you like me to pay?

I'm really sorry you had to get a job as a teenager despite mummy and daddy being millionaires, that must have been very traumatic for you. You're absolutely right, you should definitely not have to work full-time ever again, what a dreadful thought. Luckily there are plenty of people working minimum wage jobs to pay for the NHS, so nothing for you to worry about.

My parents weren't millionaires then much of it was equity gains. Why would it be traumatic? I simply asked you to clarify how I was a hypocrite?

Luckily there are plenty of people working minimum wage jobs to pay for the NHS, so nothing for you to worry about.

This doesn't even make sense!

Someone on minimum wage isn't paying more tax than me & paying more for the NHS... Why do you have a problem with me working p/t? Again how much tax do you want me to pay?

That was a nasty little wind up, wasn’t it? I expect you enjoyed that. 🙄

It's a bizarre argument to accuse me of expecting others to fund my lifestyle/public services even though I'm paying more tax than many others whilst simultaneously chastising me for not working f/t & paying more tax. 🤔

Clearly your bitterness has clouded your judgement somewhat. I hope you find some peace.

Oh look - another Wind 'em up and watch 'em go thread.

Not that I'm a cynic or anything...

The highest rate of tax is not 40%. It’s more than that. More tax is raised from the 40.% payers than the 20% payers. Luckily most highest rate payers don’t give up and reduce their hours to the 20% limit or we’d have no services at all.

I'll have to look into this! Thanks! I 'm not part of a a couple though...just a single person. {Divorced}

Luckily most highest rate payers don’t give up and reduce their hours to the 20% limit or we’d have no services at all.

A fair few keep their earnings under 100k because of the childcare implications

@oakleaffy I think it's 500k for you then.

@wipeywipe it’s a statement of the bleeding obvious so why would anyone research, publish or even reference such a statement? I’d love to see an explanation of how the majority of the value of estates liable for IHT do not belong to higher rate taxpayers given the very small percentage of estates involved.

it’s a statement of the bleeding obvious so why would anyone research, publish or even reference such a statement?

Is that the basis for statistical research, whether something is obvious or not? I'm not sure...

I’d love to see an explanation of how the majority of the value of estates liable for IHT do not belong to higher rate taxpayers given the very small percentage of estates involved.

I gave one up thread, it's about property price increases and another poster posted the below.

"the wealth about to be transfered came from house prices increasing 1145% since 1980 and equity prices increased by 7 x since 1984. "

Have you really never heard people talking about how their parents bought a house on a normal salary that has massively increased in value? Or pension schemes changing for younger entrants?

I don't think stopping inheritance would make much difference to equality. There are so many other more important inequalities.

Anyone with any sense gives money away more than 7 years before they die. Then get under the £1m threshold.

Owning a fairly modest house in London gets people to £1m. It’s not much to do with income tax if you bought it 50 years ago. It’s more to do with managing money. Most people are able to manage their finances to avoid IHT and do prefer to distribute money earlier. It’s more helpful for family to do that.

@AzurePanda

"In 1991–92 just 3.5% of UK adults paid the 40% higher rate of income tax."

"Decades of soaring house prices, economic growth and final salary pensions mean that 20 per cent of over 65s have a wealth of £1million or more in real terms, up from just 7 per cent in 2006."

"Analysis by wealth manager Netwealth shows that the total wealth owned by over 65s nearly doubled - from £2.4trillion to £4.7trillion - in the decade between 2006 and 2016.
In comparison, those between 25 and 54 years old saw their wealth increase by just 9 per cent in real terms during the same time."

For those living in higher priced properties now I think when & when you bought is more relevant than how much tax you paid. And as I already said whether a young person is on the ladder today is more tied to whether they had help vs income only. We do have an issue that income alone can't really propel young people forward today which isn't good for the economy. You can disagree though.