To think inheritance tax should pay for social care

[Wouldloveanother]

Just that really. Saw somebody else mention it on here and I think it’s a brilliant idea!

Tax avoidance. They worked within the law. Many, if not most, people subject to higher taxes will minimize what they owe quite legally.

I know it's legal but people do criticise companies & wealthy individuals for doing this. Look at the abuse Rishi got!

Rocky, you're too under-informed to comment on matters you know nothing of. IHT tax avoidance is not tax evasion.

Tax AVOIDANCE is totally legal and above board. People earning very modest incomes employ it when they claim their Personal Allowance against basic PAYE taxation. The Govt ENCOURAGES legal tax exemptions/ avoidance.

Tax evasion is illegal, and has nothing to do with Govt permitted tax reductions.

I agree. I’m just pointing out the legalities of it. I mean an ISA is tax avoidance (or tax efficient, whichever way you look at it).

Should nobody ever be tax efficient where they legally can be?

@girlfriend44

Quote re house prices
"Is their business their luck, their gain. Its nothing to do with anyone else.
Your already taxed on your earnings why should you be taxed on your house too.

Never ever will I agree with IT never ever.
None of the governments or the tax man's business."
End quote

Following on from your logic is dementia and other ill health in old age just their bad luck and their loss and nothing to do with anyone else?

Is it none of anyone elses business?

Or would you like ill old people/those with dementia to be helped by the public purse?

If you believe in publicly funded support in old age that's a bit what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too.

No man (or woman) is an island.

Yep, this.

Through totally legal means, I will reduce how much IHT I have to pay. Anyone is well within their rights to do this.

So should individuals use their ISA allowance each year then? Or not?

Is that immoral even though you are advised to do this to be more tax efficient.

@Quincythequince what's your point? I made the point that people are fine with some tax avoidance eg IHT but not other types. Do you disagree?

@2bazookas I literally typed avoidance straight after & said I couldn't remember what the correct term was. I know IHT tax planning is legal, I said upthread I know a few people who have circumnavigated it, including family.

My point was that I find it interesting how not all tax avoidance is criticised in the same way. As I said see the example of Rishis wife bowing to pressure despite doing nothing illegal. You can disagree though.

I don’t think most people that get tax avoidance, have a problem with it.

Using Rishi Sunak, the ‘billionaire chancellor’ by way of marriage to his non-dom wife, is not a good example of this.

This is a man who was going to take £20 per week from the poorest and say he was going to run the country for the good of all.

Not Joe and Sarah round the corner who make sure that they can pass on their money to their kids.

It’s a completely false equivalence and conflating it with the term ‘evasion’ is a bit of a strawman too.

Oh I see
yes, I can see money for care shouldn't be taxed, esp as you paid tax to earn it.

re your DD and the pension - does this mean we inherit mum's private pension? It's very small but I just thought it went with her. I thought only spouses inherited pensions.

It’s a completely false equivalence and conflating it with the term ‘evasion’ is a bit of a strawman too.

I didn't conflate it, I used the wrong term & then followed it with the right one & said I forgot which one is the correct term...

I don’t think most people that get tax avoidance, have a problem with it.

So you think people who criticise Amazon etc are stupid or don't understand?

Using Rishi Sunak, the ‘billionaire chancellor’ by way of marriage to his non-dom wife, is not a good example of this.

I disagree & also think it was sexist & racist, but that's a different point.

Ok, but to then bring a chancellor (who himself didn’t avoid anything that we know of) and his wife’s perfectly legal activities into this by way of mention of the daily mailesque style headline is not necessary.

Rishi did nothing wrong. Neither did his wife.

Was he a palatable choice as chancellor - yes (in my view) are those affairs surrounding him and his family in any way relevant to the average person on the street - no!

No, because Amazon is a corporation, not an individual. We are speaking in this thread about individuals and tax avoidance. You want to discuss why corporations should fund care, by all means do so, but that’s not what this thread is about.

There is non direct comparison to be made here at all.

What was sexist and racist?

Absolutely not. I think inheritance tax is abhorrent and I would abolish it completely. I will be doing everything I legally can to ensure my children don't pay a single penny of IT and my parents are doing the same for their estate.

However, I would happily pay additional tax/national insurance to fund social care. But be taxed on property that's already been taxed? Jog on 😂

Wasting your tears crying into your cornflakes because some people stand to inherit and you don't. Life is unfair in many respects and this is just one of them. And yes, it is a lottery as to how/where you come into this world, and guess what - there's f all you can do about it.

I doubt very much that the bank of Mum & Dad want to use their money (however it was earned) to pay for social care of those who probably / possibly have not contributed anywhere near what they have already contributed over their lifetimes. Of course they want it to benefit their own families.

These same super rich already pay for private care throughout their lives, taking some of the burden from the system, and when it comes to elderly care, again paying for themselves. Lots of posters on this thread would like to bleed the rich dry in a race to the bottom. Which is hard luck really, as PPs have said, wealth advisors will show the wealthiest how to avoid paying ridiculous amounts of inheritance tax.

And for what it's worth, no I'm not likely to inherit big, I don't need to, but what will be left behind when DH & I go is sizeable and we'll do everything we can to make sure it's as tax-free as possible. I don't have socialist values and I'm sorry to break it to you but the UK is not a socialist country.

@Quincythequince sorry I didn't get the memo about what is allowed to be discussed & what isn't. Do you have a list?

We are speaking in this thread about individuals and tax avoidance.

Isn't it about paying for care & funding it from inheritance tax? I simply made the point that I find it interesting why some tax avoidance is criticised but others is a positive. It was a flippant comment but I'm not sure why that triggered you & it's gone on to a massive derail. Just agree to disagree! I'm bored of the back & forth, surely you are? I'm sure everyone else is! 😆

CrystalCoco Wasting your tears crying into your cornflakes because some people stand to inherit and you don't. Life is unfair in many respects and this is just one of them. And yes, it is a lottery as to how/where you come into this world, and guess what - there's f all you can do about it.

What an odd comment.

Surely even the most patriotic must be aware that Britain is an unusual position, due to high house prices and low inheritance tax? And it has relatively high income taxes on middle income earners.

Taxation is hardly static or unchangeable, so why on earth wouldn't people comment on it??

There is also plenty you can do about it. Moving or retiring abroad is just one of them. Still possible even after Brexit in many countries.

Well yes, but in my experience no one utilizing financial advisors and minimizing their tax burden particularly cares about criticism*. It is what it is.

*with the exception of Rishi Sunak, and those similar to him, who depend on the good will of voters.

There is no memo, but many of your responses are whataboutery. To suddenly mention Amazon when individuals say they will minimise their IHT burden doesn’t make a lot of sense.

And Fine, clearly you can move on from the original topic. But nowhere has it been mentioned about corporates paying more tax to fund IHT, so you’ll get questioned on it, because it’s confusing.
It’s not derailed it. I am legitimately engaging with points you are making. What’s wrong with that?

FWIW I think corporations need to pay way more. Waaaaay more!

I mean, lottery wins since we’re moving on from individuals and IHT.

Those massive wins that you hear about?

How are they taxed? Can we do more to get a fair share of that too?

The amount my parents will leave me when they die means eventually I will be able to come off benefits and support myself and my kids.

If it was used to fund

And I don’t actually disagree outright with your points, I am just questioning the relevance of some of what you say on this thread, that’s all.

Don’t get shirty about it.

Posted to soon...

If it will be used on for example my sons social care it will be used within a year, my DS's social care will still need funding so will our benefits.

It's a very very short sighted approach