Charles won't pay inheritance tax on what he inherits from the queen..

[justlikethatt]

Are people aware? And think this is OK ?

Ha, more than £300 million personal wealth isn't enough for you???

Does it matter? It's still one rule for the public and one rule for them.

''The rich man in his castle,
the poor man at his gate,
(a non-existent) God made them high and lowly,
and ordered their estate.''

Seemingly that verse is now mostly omitted from the Victorian hymn All Things Bright And Beautiful. A shame. If it had been kept in, those who heard it might then realise that nothing really changes for the peasantry

I can't see the relevance of that, I mean all in, they cost us about £340 million. Should we have give them more?

If we did what Australia did and ditched inheritance tax then this wouldn't be an issue. No one superrich pays much inheritance tax because they can afford offshore trust funds etc. The Australian approach is really good - they just treat it as they would any other assets changing ownership. So the deceased person's estate pays capital gains tax on the transfer of assets like shares and second homes. This means people who die suddenly are not unfairly disadvantaged with a large tax burden because they haven't had seven years to work out how to hand on their savings.

I’m not remotely bothered about this. But then, I am a ‘cretin’ as charmingly mentioned, above.

Nobody’s proposing giving them more. That figure’s about ten times the annual Sovereign Grant, by the way.

Why the hell is it goady? Perfectly natural question which any right minded person would agree

Not really, the poor aren't liable for IHT. The rich have ways of avoiding it. Is the monarch any different from the (far wealthier) Duke of Westminster in this regard?

@TarasHarp55 apparently any discussion that's not completely in favour of the royals is now goady. What a dumb word. I've never heard anyone use it in real life.

You mean envy, not jealousy. Lots of people
on MN misuse the word.

You only have to look at this thread to see how misunderstood the Royal Family finances are. I read Norman Bakers book 'And What Do You Do' after a recommendation on Mumsnet which gives a lot of information on how opaque the RF finances are and the steps they have taken to keep them that way. He was a privy counsellor so knows what he is talking about - the people equating the palaces and etc with his personal inheritance could learn a lot from that book.

I haven't looked at how Republic arrived at those figures, but I'd be willing to bet that they have included lots of things that a President would cost us too. It's not like a hypothetical PotUK would be accommodated in a one bedroom flat in Hackney with a minimum wage G4S security guard for protection and a bicycle for travelling to engagements.

👏🏼 👏🏼 this is so true!

We're probably talking at cross-purposes.

What I mean is, the fact that Sunak's wife may be worth 10x more than the Queen, does not make it okay for Charles to not pay IHT.

Yup.

@DdraigGoch What about the idiots in the middle, who can't avoid it ? No the monarch is not different to the duke of Westminster in this regard.

What annoys me is that if anyone non royal uses a trust or in some way makes tax savings, they're outcast / judged as disgusting human beings by the media and the royalists. So it's OK for the duke and his mates not to pay tax, but when someone else does it, they're labelled as immoral.

Time and time again we accuse people on here as being entitled / grabby / selfish, yet we totally accept it from the royals.

No ones saying the DOW shouldn't have to pay inheritance tax, you're the only one making this comparison. I think everyone who is against the monarchy avoiding paying IHT is also against the rich in general avoiding it 🙄

Of course.. it’s always been one rule for them and one for us.

What about the idiots in the middle, who can't avoid it ?

The threshold is £1 million for a couple. Anyone nearing the threshold can avoid it, it’s not rocket science. Once again, only 4% of estates are liable for IHT.

A married couple can leave £1m in assets tax-free. Just how many people are left in this 'squeezed middle'? Maybe they could speak to an accountant or put the house in their children's name (at least seven years before they die).

I'm not the only one making the comparison at all.

Indeed some other posters have said that they think that IHT should be abolished entirely.

What is this ‘shortfall’ you talk of?

How can you be certain?

Sorry but I can't be complacent like that. It's the injustice, the inequality of it all. There's kids going to bed hungry tonight. We should all be angry