Inheritance -Family money?

[ZekeZeke]

Example:
Married 25 years, no mortgage both work.
2 adult children in University still living at home.(both working part time).
Widowed MIL dies. DH inherits £200,000
Is this family pot money?
DH Money?
DH and DW money?
DH ans DC money?

Absolutely agree with this.

Inheritance tax stifles ambition and inhibits growth. Every single person who works hopes that by doing so they will benefit their children. Inheritance tax stops them doing that. It is fuelled by the politics of envy usually by people who are ignorant of what it is and what effect it has on families. When you have seen a father’s lifetimes hard work effectively stolen from you by a grasping government then you can comment on how equitable it is. But not before.

That's not what I said at all. I work to live like everyone does. I said I wouldn't bother trying to save and invest for the long term.
As I have said, we are not so incredibly wealthy that I expect my children to never have to work and that's not my goal at all. You seem to have decided that's my goal all on your own.
I also said, though it's probably lost in the mists now, that we enjoy a nice life (nice area, no real financial worries, lots of days out and holidays and clubs for the kids etc is what I mean by that) so again you have decided that because I save and invest for the long term that I'm some sort of martyr wasting her life being miserable when I said nothing of the sort.
My eldest has type 1 diabetes and there is talk of the state pension age being raised to 71. So at the age of 4, he's got a a SIPP. I don't want him to start at zero once he's done paying back student loans and saving for a house then at the age of 40 he's thinking "fuuuuuck now I need to start a pension" when the truth is his health might not last that long. Luckily, Mum thought ahead and is giving him a head start. I hope this will take pressure off him and give him better options in the future, not that he can be a pampered prince who never works.

As @Mirabai says, inheritance CAN sometimes be treated in law as a joint matrimonial asset, not as individual property. That is, in England and Wales.

In Scotland, the law is different:
https://www.newtons.co.uk/news/how-are-assets-divided-in-divorce-in-scotland/

Inheritance tax did not stop my parents or my in laws from benefitting us when they passed - you know it doesn't kick in until around £325k? Even after that, it is a proportion of what is inherited, they don't literally inherit nothing! You are talking about sums of wealth few of us can dream of here.

Complete bollocks. For a couple who own a property no inheritance tax is payable under £1 million. It affects 7% of of estates. It’s a tax on wealth for rich people and if an unearned windfall of £250k isn’t enough for our four kids we’ve completely failed in their upbringing.

I’m sorry I might have missed some of your previous posts, but you said in the quote I responded too:

Is there evidence that stripping assets at death and making everyone equal at the the starting blocks motivates people to work/strive/save/invest?
I don't think I'd bother if I couldn't pass a legacy on, what would be the point? Can't take it with you after all.

The first sentence would appear to imply that you are suggesting that removing the right to inheritance to make a level playing field would remove motivation to work. I am sorry if this was meant to be a genuine question rather than a statement. I don’t have an answer but I think it would be interesting to see the impact of stopping people inheriting life changing amounts of money and redistributing this.

The second sentence I thought you were stating that there would be no point working/striving if you can’t pass a legacy on. Apologies for misinterpreting that.

I am not sure that inheritance tax stifles ambition and inhibits growth. I guess for people who only work to increase the total wealth of their own children this might be true I guess. There are people with no children who work very hard so I guess they must be motivated by something other than wanting to pass on wealth.

Politely, I think I am able to comment on the equity of inheritance tax without having only inherited £100s of thousands in money I didn’t earn and seeing some of that go on tax. It is like me saying ‘unless you see almost half your hard earned salary go in income tax whilst your neighbour inherits in one year what you earn in 10 whilst paying no tax you cannot comment on the equity of the tax system’ or you cannot comment ‘unless you have seen your child unable to buy a home because someone inherited a huge amount and outbid your child for a house they wanted so the inheritees can have it as an investment property and your child now can rent it off them for more than the mortgage would have been’.

For richer for poorer.....!

Jm 9138 The politics of envy has held this country back for generations.

More people could dream, and benefit, if inheritance tax did not exist. It would alter the way we looked at wealth. From thinking everything belongs to the state and, if we are lucky they might give us a little bit back, to thinking that people can all can benefit from the fruits of their labour. Spend if they wish to or save for the next generation.

£1 million per couple is free of tax. Just 7% of people have estates exceeding that. As I said, if £250k unearned and tax free isn’t enough for our kids, we’ve totally messed up bringing them up.

Legally it’s joint money.
morally it’s also joint money.

my husband and I share everything. We would never deny the other buying what they want anyway, whether it’s hobbies/cars. I like diamonds. We tend to spend on whomever wants something at the time and the other person gets what they want next time if we have to save up. Why would one half of a partnership have more money than the other?

Legally it’s not joint money. That’s why spouses have to leave one another their estates in a formal will. If all marital assets were legally joint they’d automatically pass to the survivor at the first death.

What nonsense!

It of course stands to reason that many, many more people will benefit from the proceeds of inheritance tax in improved schools, hospitals, transport, police etc. than will benefit from a smaller tax bill.

Parents can spend or share what they like with their children during their lifetimes, then pass on up to a million pounds to their kids.

"The state" doesn't take everything - the state is a surrogate for our wider society. Children with parents with the ability to pass on more than a million pounds to them have already benefitted hugely from the way society is organised.

No, the politics of greed has held us back.

Nonsensical straw man article.

Inheritance tax doesn't strip everything. It takes tax of 40% of large inheritances. Broadly, if you have a £100m fortune at death, your children will "only" inherit £60m. Boo fucking hoo. And £40m will go to support public services that the rest of us need.

But, of course you can give any size gift to your children during your lifetime, with in seven years of your death, without paying inheritance tax. And your wealth will help them in all kinds of ways through your hard work during your life.

Rent seeking, short-termism, failure to invest in children's education, aggregation of land and capital around a small number of individuals, the denigration of trades as occupations children should aspire to, a banking system that rewards risking other people's money massively whilst not punishing failure, a dreadful electoral system with our leadership having no real checks and balances and coming from a very narrow section of society....

The list goes on and on in terms of what holds the country back. I am not convinced that 7% of estates having some inheritance tax is on that list. I am not sure what you mean by 'the politics of envy' without seeing that a happier society for everyone is one where everyone feels they will be rewarded for their efforts and no one individual can massively disproportionately control societies resources for their own benefit.

Joint asset as all money coming in should be imo. I don't understand the newer style of separate accounts for upkeep of the family. Own accounts for disposable income absolutely but main monies into the pot. The only way I'd differ this would be if one spouse was a gambler then the other would be in control.

That’s once you’re dead. While you’re alive if you divorce the marital assets are joint and would be divided equally or fairly. You’d also be legally liable for any joint debt, even unknown debts like gambling, if the account or contract is joint.

When you die you can leave it individually how you like.

i wasn’t talking about what happens in the case of divorce. I was disputing the statement that legally all money is joint money. It’s not unless it’s held in both names. My husband can’t just help himself to my bank account and vice versa.

Agree with this.

No one is wrong here...it's dh money but he can choose to share with the family which most people will do.

What happens on divorce is key to the question of whether marital assets are joint. As is the issue of debt on joint accounts, contracts, ownership.

Your response to the claim that “Legally all money is joint money” was:
“Legally it’s not joint money”.

In fact, neither statement is correct. Or both are true in part.

I inherited, and I am the main breadwinner. We have one pot, everything goes into it. That's why we got married.