Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Raising IHT threshold to £1,000,000 - because you're worth it...

231 replies

Figmentofmyimagination · 08/07/2015 08:33

There are so many reasons why this change is morally repugnant, socially regressive and economically illiterate, it is hard to know where to begin with this ....

OP posts:
InnocentWhenYouDream · 11/07/2015 17:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JassyRadlett · 11/07/2015 17:07

Ooh, ooh, Ellie, let's look at my house! Bought in 2013 for £450K, now worth over £650k.

Explain again how I've lost becauae inflation?

You know CGT isn't indexed to inflation, right? And that most folk don't look at their home as a 70 year investment on which they are losing out in terms of compound interest and inflation, even if the figures stacked up to back your argument?

JassyRadlett · 11/07/2015 17:23

Worth noting that in Australia, almost everything in an estate except for cash or a primary residence is subject to tax (eg CGT).

InnocentWhenYouDream · 11/07/2015 17:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TTWK · 11/07/2015 17:49

To take another poster's example, a house bought for £100K in 1950 may now be worth just under £1M and be exempt from inheritance tax. But, the inflation adjusted value of that £100K capital today is £994,996. Other than the utility of having had somewhere to live for the past 65 years and only having had to pay for the building's upkeep, the actual profit in a £100K to £1M home over the example given by another poster is next to nil.

You are forgetting that the person who bought for £100K in 1950 put down a deposit of £5k, on which they'd paid tax, and borrowed £95K, on which they hadn't. Then they would have got MIRAS tax relief on their mortgage interest for the entire length of their mortgage so paid zero tax on their repayments.

Add that to the fact that around my way, West London, a house bought in 1951 for £2K was recently sold for £2.5M, a £100K house in 1950 would have been a 20 bed mansion in Kensington, and would sell for around £150M.

Sorry, but your facts and figures are so divorced from reality, that it's embarrassing.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I will benefit from the recent change in IHT, but I'm not stupid enough to try and pretend I've paid tax on the money I will leave in my estate. It will be mainly London house price inflation and has been neither earned nor taxed. That is a fact!

keepitsimple0 · 13/07/2015 10:28

I think only Buckingham palace cost 100k in 1950. The figures are all off. TTWK has much better figures illustrating house inflation.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page