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

[Figmentofmyimagination]

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 ....

Also, who's to say that the asset itself was bought with taxed money? It could be an inheritance, or a gift - in the case of the very wealthy, this is usually the case. Or it could be that even if the original investment in the asset was done with taxed income, the asset that is eventually inherited is of a much higher value, with none of that value having been previously taxed. There's a poster upthread saying that her house has increased in value by £400k since she bought it? How much tax has she paid on that £400k?

Jane, my point about VAT was perhaps too opaque. VAT is a direct tax on money that has already been taxed before. It is paid by just about every individual.

Why is VAT acceptable, but not IHT (which after all has no impact on the person who had already paid the tax once, and often applied to a capital gain that has never been taxed)?

Taking other people's money to pay for whatever pet project you deem fit cannot be justified or equitable, because removal of a persons wealth, to give it to another who has never earned it, can never be righteous, just or noble

I just love the irony in this sentence. Because we all know how hard a person has to work to earn an inheritance!

Permanentlyexhausted So you justify taking someone's money by saying, ' that man had to pay tax on his petrol, and that woman had to pay tax on her clothes, to you must pay tax on your house?

'Well, Mrs Florence. You were robbed in your home last month. So when these gentlemen came back to rob you a second time, there was nothing for them to take. So no harm has been done, then. You need to get over it, mrs Florence, and stop bothering these young gentlemen. They have a living to make too, you know. You owe it to them.'

Most essential stuff in the uk is zero rated for vat. Ok I know San pro is taxed but that's an anomaly. I'd prefer direct taxation when buying ie vat rather than tax on assets. People may choose to piss money up walls, that's their option. People who choose to save/ invest in any shape or form are taxed. How is that fair??

Oh, permanently. How cynical. I worked so hard to make sure I was born to and raised by people who valued education, were voracious readers, whose own parents helped to fund my education and who have since accumulated significant wealth through a combination of hard work and good fortune.

It was all fucking hard graft, I tell you.

Jane, that's just illogical. You either object to double taxation (if we are to accept that IHT is in fact double taxation - the deceased isn't paying it, are they?) or you don't.

If you object to it, bleating about how saving/investing is morally superior and any windfalls shouldn't be taxed, while income based on labour should makes your priorities look rather odd.

Who's to say the recipients of an inheritance aren't going to 'piss money up walls', after all?

The changes in IHT thresholds are not going to affect me anyway but I don't disagree with the sentiments of raising the limits. Maybe the limits are still too low?

I would like to think that prudence in financial matters still is worthwhile.
However this thread makes me think I'm best to stash everything under the mattress

No, Ellie. I am quite clearly asking a question. Why should inherited money be treated differently to earned money?

Permanent And you justify taking money from someone who has a right to it, by claiming if his father earned it, it is not his property? By that rationale, you could solve the student equity problem by forcing those on middle incomes who's children wish to attend university, to also sponsor an under privileged child's higher education. Or add a levy onto cars over £30K to pay for vehicles for those who cannot afford them.

You either believe a person has a right to own his own property, or you do not. This socialist concept of, you own most of your own house, and you're not allowed to do with it as you please, really is a step towards fascism, and we all know what happens to the pet poor when socialism achieve that goal.

I'm really not buying this idea that once tax has been paid on an asset, it should never be taxed again, in perpetuity. How far would you extend this principle, Jane? For eg if someone buys a house, they pay stamp duty. The next person that buys that house will also pay stamp duty. Horrors! That house has already had stamp duty paid on it! Greedy, nasty state!

Jane, just thought it might be worth refreshing your memory on some of the 'non-essentials' that attract VAT:

Electricity
Gas
Adult clothing and shoes
Furniture and white goods
Telephony
Petrol
Most things that aren't food, books, kids' clothes or gambling, or that aren't taxed in other ways.

All of which tend to have the VAT paid for out of income that, assuming the individual is above the basic rate threshold, they have already paid tax on.

Unlike IHT, where the beneficiary has never paid tax on the sum they receive previously (and given the changes are focused on housing - may be largely comprised of a capital gain that hasn't been taxed at all).

Permanet For the same reason the government does not tax your child's pocket money, your son when you buy him a car for his 18th birthday, or your daughter when you give her £10K towards her first home. It is earned money that has been taxed, both when it was earned, and as it accrued interest, and it is a gift from one person to another, in most cases from a parent to a child. Now, if you believe it is equitable, then surely it is equitable that all gifts from a parent to a child should be subject to taxation? Or is this a case of envy, and not one where you would be happy that the threshold should drop to a point where it encompasses you and your children?

"Time for bed," said Zebedee.

Cruikshank, it gets worse. The salary people get, and pay income tax on? It's probably paid for with money that someone has already paid tax on. And sometimes it's paid for with double taxed income if the customer or similar had to pay VAT for the good or service.

I haven't justified doing anything, Ellie. I have asked a question which it is apparent no-one can actually answer.

However, your latest post makes no sense. Of course the father (not the mother? How patriarchal!) can do whatever he wants with his property. IHT has no effect on what he chooses to do with it.

Oh Ellie. Bless. Is your only comeback really 'you're just jealous!' in spite of evidence to the contrary on this thread?

Is there another Permanently on this thread Ellie, because your responding to things I have not said.

But Jassy, that means the entire taxation system that this country is built on is fundamentally flawed - everyone knows you can't tax the same thing twice. I think someone should have a word.

Oh, I missed this wee gem: And you justify taking money from someone who has a right to it, by claiming if his father earned it, it is not his property?

He (sigh) has no automatic right to his father's (or mother's) earnings or property. If his parent is irresponsible enough to die intestate, then children will inherit. But ther is no right to an inheritance should the parent choose to leave it elsewhere.

In your shoes, following the 'fascist government is nicking your property/earnings' principle, I'd be much more troubled by the concept of income tax than IHT.

Or add a levy onto cars over £30K to pay for vehicles for those who cannot afford them.
VAT

Cruikshank, I know! I'm going to write to George Osborne. He's going to want to rethink the whole Budget.

Don't be alarmed, but I've heard that this is a bigger problem than the UK's economy depending on a complex interplay involving tax being paid on economic activities and transfers of wealth, most of which are multi-layered. I mean, I think that every country in the world does this. Madness, sheer madness.

And you justify taking money from someone who has a right to it, by claiming if his father earned it, it is not his property?

Well, if the father earned it, clearly it is not the son's property. Just as the money that I earn is not your property.