Cut inheritance tax, I'll pay more tax so some kids can get a free house

[gomgeg]

Of course it (whether a child gets to inherit hundreds of thousand of pounds or sweet FA) is an accident of birth, to argue otherwise involves imagination in overdrive. But that`s perfectly normal, people believe what they want to believe, whether it`s logical or not.

 

I bet Christmas and birthdays are a joyous time in your house, when you're explaining to the kids they can't have any presents because you're donating the money to the families where daddy won't work.

Edited October 28, 2015 by nikki-red
fixed quote tags

[Justin Smith]

Where's your proof of this? IHT raises less than 1% of the Revenue's income..they're hardly going to alter income tax to take this into account..

 

It`s obvious, if you reduce one tax, you either have to increase another, or reduce public services. Only extreme left wingers disagree with that.

[RonJeremy]

Not sure what that means. Yellow perhaps ? Is that the Lib Dems ?

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 13:35 ----------

 

 

Unless it`s aggressive tax avoidance, Gary Barlow MR HYPOCRITE springs to mind here.

 

How aggressive is acceptable to you?

I'm not sure what you mean?

Would giving a large chunk of it away to your kids and then living(aggressively) for seven years be ok?

[Justin Smith]

I bet Christmas and birthdays are a joyous time in your house, when you're explaining to the kids they can't have any presents because you're donating the money to the families where daddy won't work.

 

It`s interesting you should say that, because I resurrected this thread to get an answer to this question :

 

In view of the current Tory proposals to cut tax credits to low income working families ("to balance the books") I couldn`t help thinking about this thread. My question is simple :

 

Is there anyone (who contributed to this thread or not) that thinks it fair to take money from low income working families and at the same time increase the inheritance tax threshold so people can inherit a house worth one million pounds and pay no tax on it ?" How is the latter helping to "balance the books" ?

 

Funnily enough none of those in favour of cutting IHT have come on to give straight answer to that.

Come on, be consistent, will one of you say :

"Yes, I think they should cut tax credits to poorer working families so my kids can inherit a house worth up to £1,000,000 (for which they`ve never worked) without having to pay any tax on it"

 

Because that`s the implication of what you fans of untaxed inheritance are all saying. In fact it isn`t the implication, that`s what you`re saying, loud and proud.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 13:51 ----------

 

How aggressive is acceptable to you?

I'm not sure what you mean?

Would giving a large chunk of it away to your kids and then living(aggressively) for seven years be ok?

 

You know what I mean by aggressive tax avoidance. Shameless expensive convoluted schemes designed to exploit loopholes and are basically against the spirit of those tax laws, so that the very rich (the only ones who can afford them) can pay a lower rate of income tax than someone earning in a year what they earn in a week or even a day.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Justin Smith

[WiseOwl182]

Of course it (whether a child gets to inherit hundreds of thousand of pounds or sweet FA) is an accident of birth, to argue otherwise involves imagination in overdrive. But that`s perfectly normal, people believe what they want to believe, whether it`s logical or not.

 

If I'm working hard and saving hard , and planned a family around that too, it's no accident. Where my money goes should be up to me. It is an "accident" as to who you are born as and what your parents are like, but that's life. Should fortunate parents make their children ill as compensation for the less fortunate children born with disabilities? Should families in the UK move to Somalia out of guilt that their accident of birth means they live in a rich country?

 

Ps. I notice you have now twice dodged the opportunity to pledge your inheritance to charity. Actions speak louder than words. If you accept your inheritance you're a hypocrite. I will accept mine gracefully when the day comes, and I hope my children will do the same too.

[RonJeremy]

Evasion would clearly not be "good" advice.

 

Indeed. There is a big difference in avoidance and evasion.

[truman]

It`s interesting you should say that, because I resurrected this thread to get an answer to this question :

 

 

 

Funnily enough none of those in favour of cutting IHT have come on to give straight answer to that.

Come on, be consistent, will one of you say :

"Yes, I think they should cut tax credits to poorer working families so my kids can inherit a house worth up to £1,000,000 (for which they`ve never worked) without having to pay any tax on it"

 

Because that`s the implication of what you fans of untaxed inheritance are all saying. In fact it isn`t the implication, that`s what you`re saying, loud and proud.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 13:51 ----------

 

 

You know what I mean by aggressive tax avoidance. Shameless expensive convoluted schemes designed to exploit loopholes and are basically against the spirit of those tax laws, so that the very rich (the only ones who can afford them) can pay a lower rate of income tax than someone earning in a year what they earn in a week or even a day.

 

So I can take you will neither accept any inheritance nor leave any?

[exxon]

It`s interesting you should say that, because I resurrected this thread to get an answer to this question :

 

 

 

Funnily enough none of those in favour of cutting IHT have come on to give straight answer to that.

Come on, be consistent, will one of you say :

"Yes, I think they should cut tax credits to poorer working families so my kids can inherit a house worth up to £1,000,000 (for which they`ve never worked) without having to pay any tax on it"

 

Because that`s the implication of what you fans of untaxed inheritance are all saying. In fact it isn`t the implication, that`s what you`re saying, loud and proud.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 13:51 ----------

 

 

It is interesting that you should say that after Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said of inheritance tax ""Somebody leaving a normal house to their children or family - fine".

 

That's interesting as the average house price in London is about to pass the £500,000 mark.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34656650

[999tigger]

It`s interesting you should say that, because I resurrected this thread to get an answer to this question :

 

 

 

Funnily enough none of those in favour of cutting IHT have come on to give straight answer to that.

Come on, be consistent, will one of you say :

"Yes, I think they should cut tax credits to poorer working families so my kids can inherit a house worth up to £1,000,000 (for which they`ve never worked) without having to pay any tax on it"

 

Because that`s the implication of what you fans of untaxed inheritance are all saying. In fact it isn`t the implication, that`s what you`re saying, loud and proud.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 13:51 ----------

 

 

You know what I mean by aggressive tax avoidance. Shameless expensive convoluted schemes designed to exploit loopholes and are basically against the spirit of those tax laws, so that the very rich (the only ones who can afford them) can pay a lower rate of income tax than someone earning in a year what they earn in a week or even a day.

 

TBF I think loads of people have said exactly that, its just you choose not to see it.

 

Do you really need it explaining to you how things work? Politics isnt always about fairness.

What did you do before tax credits existed? The people of this country elected a government who are keen on cutting welfare and realigning the tax burden in fabour of its supporters. It would eb the same whichever party gets elected. If you are on the losing side then you cna expect to pay more or and receive less.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 14:04 ----------

 

It`s obvious, if you reduce one tax, you either have to increase another, or reduce public services. Only extreme left wingers disagree with that.

 

This isnt strictly true. The ivernment has 2 additional options which is to borrow or benefit from increased tax revenues in time of growth.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 14:05 ----------

 

Indeed. There is a big difference in avoidance and evasion.

 

Considering there was no mention of evasion or anything untoward your comment was odd to say the least.

[RonJeremy]

It`s interesting you should say that, because I resurrected this thread to get an answer to this question :

 

 

 

Funnily enough none of those in favour of cutting IHT have come on to give straight answer to that.

Come on, be consistent, will one of you say :

"Yes, I think they should cut tax credits to poorer working families so my kids can inherit a house worth up to £1,000,000 (for which they`ve never worked) without having to pay any tax on it"

 

Because that`s the implication of what you fans of untaxed inheritance are all saying. In fact it isn`t the implication, that`s what you`re saying, loud and proud.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 13:51 ----------

 

 

You know what I mean by aggressive tax avoidance. Shameless expensive convoluted schemes designed to exploit loopholes and are basically against the spirit of those tax laws, so that the very rich (the only ones who can afford them) can pay a lower rate of income tax than someone earning in a year what they earn in a week or even a day.

 

no. We are discussing IHT aren't we?

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 15:08 ----------

 

TBF I think loads of people have said exactly that, its just you choose not to see it.

 

Do you really need it explaining to you how things work? Politics isnt always about fairness.

What did you do before tax credits existed? The people of this country elected a government who are keen on cutting welfare and realigning the tax burden in fabour of its supporters. It would eb the same whichever party gets elected. If you are on the losing side then you cna expect to pay more or and receive less.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 14:04 ----------

 

 

This isnt strictly true. The ivernment has 2 additional options which is to borrow or benefit from increased tax revenues in time of growth.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 14:05 ----------

 

 

Considering there was no mention of evasion or anything untoward your comment was odd to say the least.

 

Fine by me - it's just tax avoidance you are proposing then?