Inheritance tax

[Returnofrros]

Abolish or keep?

All my gut instincts say abolish but mibbe a very large increase in the threshold wud be more palatable to some.

[islaydarkblue]

The threshold should have been increased in line with inflation.

[Dodbroon]

Abolish or keep?

All my gut instincts say abolish but mibbe a very large increase in the threshold wud be more palatable to some.

Sort of feel the same in that it is a strange punitive tax that should be abolished but it is unlikely that a party would get away with doing so without cries of helping the rich. Someone could have very little cash and a house valued at £400k and his/her heirs would still have to shell out £30k or so in tax on their death assuming no surviving spouse/partner. I can understand most taxes; income and sales but a few leave me uncomfortable. At the smaller end of the scale taxing insurance premiums seems just plain daft and then at the other end of the scale you have property based taxes that in my opinion are largely unjust and much more unfair than a form of poll tax for obvious reasons.

Inheritance tax and any future proposed wealth tax together with wealth related scales and cut off points for paying for social care in old age are in most cases grossly unfair. People on minimum wage who do not have the means to save and have never owned property are largely outwith these forms of 'taxation'. The super rich with massive investments and property holdings have well paid consultants to tax plan and can for the most part can legally avoid paying these 'taxes'. The burden falls on the middle classes who have prudently saved for old age or to have monies to pass on to their families. There are limits to pass on assets legally during a person's lifetime but you can't get away from the main unfairness of taxing/punishing someone who has saved against someone who has spent all their money.I
Party A saved throughout his/her lifetime and ends up with say a house worth £300k and £200k in investments/savings. This is easily possible from ' relatively modest' income these days and is hit with a tax bill of £70k or forced to pay upwards of £1k a week for residential care in old age on all assets over c. £30k (there are certain safeguards temporarily for partners/spouses still alive). Party B could well have had a better salary throughout working life and theoretically could have accumulated a bigger property/savings lot but chose a different lifestyle, spending all that they earned, borrowing consistently on any property owned right to the end via equity release ending up with say £20k in assets. On death no taxes due. In later life free residential care. All this does is discourage savings encouraging folk to spend all they have. Any tax or requirement to pay for care that can be negated by lashing out £100k on an elongated world cruise or by sticking said sum on some outsider in the 3.30 at York or a single number on the roulette wheel is unjust.

The actual government take on this tax is not huge but has a huge impact on the middle class person as described.

The one consolation in this tax however is that the setting of the rate is not (so far) a devolved power which thankfully stops the SNP and their loony partners in crime the Mad Greens getting their grubby hands on it.

[BCram]

Sort of feel the same in that it is a strange punitive tax that should be abolished but it is unlikely that a party would get away with doing so without cries of helping the rich. Someone could have very little cash and a house valued at £400k and his/her heirs would still have to shell out £30k or so in tax on their death assuming no surviving spouse/partner. I can understand most taxes; income and sales but a few leave me uncomfortable. At the smaller end of the scale taxing insurance premiums seems just plain daft and then at the other end of the scale you have property based taxes that in my opinion are largely unjust and much more unfair than a form of poll tax for obvious reasons.

Inheritance tax and any future proposed wealth tax together with wealth related scales and cut off points for paying for social care in old age are in most cases grossly unfair. People on minimum wage who do not have the means to save and have never owned property are largely outwith these forms of 'taxation'. The super rich with massive investments and property holdings have well paid consultants to tax plan and can for the most part can legally avoid paying these 'taxes'. The burden falls on the middle classes who have prudently saved for old age or to have monies to pass on to their families. There are limits to pass on assets legally during a person's lifetime but you can't get away from the main unfairness of taxing/punishing someone who has saved against someone who has spent all their money.I
Party A saved throughout his/her lifetime and ends up with say a house worth £300k and £200k in investments/savings. This is easily possible from ' relatively modest' income these days and is hit with a tax bill of £70k or forced to pay upwards of £1k a week for residential care in old age on all assets over c. £30k (there are certain safeguards temporarily for partners/spouses still alive). Party B could well have had a better salary throughout working life and theoretically could have accumulated a bigger property/savings lot but chose a different lifestyle, spending all that they earned, borrowing consistently on any property owned right to the end via equity release ending up with say £20k in assets. On death no taxes due. In later life free residential care. All this does is discourage savings encouraging folk to spend all they have. Any tax or requirement to pay for care that can be negated by lashing out £100k on an elongated world cruise or by sticking said sum on some outsider in the 3.30 at York or a single number on the roulette wheel is unjust.

The actual government take on this tax is not huge but has a huge impact on the middle class person as described.

The one consolation in this tax however is that the setting of the rate is not (so far) a devolved power which thankfully stops the SNP and their loony partners in crime the Mad Greens getting their grubby hands on it.

Wish you had not mentioned anything about this power not being devolved. God help us if we ever get another coalition Government which has Greens as part of it. They are fine for raising issues and bringing their particular ideas into a discussion but as for allowing them to form policy, it's a big NO from me

[Deeranged]

Wish you had not mentioned anything about this power not being devolved. God help us if we ever get another coalition Government which has Greens as part of it. They are fine for raising issues and bringing their particular ideas into a discussion but as for allowing them to form policy, it's a big NO from me

Hopefully the next majority government in Scotland can reverse the damage these woke nonsense halfwit greens have caused.

[BCram]

Hopefully the next majority government in Scotland can reverse the damage these woke nonsense halfwit greens have caused.

Agree. Have a feeling that the lessons to be learned from this coalition of SNP and Greens will not have been taken on board and we might yet see Greens involved, again, in the next Scottish government. Capitalism has a very bad name just now, quite rightly for some of the policies that allow naked opportunism and the abuse of power, but at the end of the day you can't tax your way to economic growth, or use redistributive tax policies to improve the lot of the poorer members of society. Capitalism should and can lift everyone up, imo.

[Returnofrros]

Sort of feel the same in that it is a strange punitive tax that should be abolished but it is unlikely that a party would get away with doing so without cries of helping the rich. Someone could have very little cash and a house valued at £400k and his/her heirs would still have to shell out £30k or so in tax on their death assuming no surviving spouse/partner. I can understand most taxes; income and sales but a few leave me uncomfortable. At the smaller end of the scale taxing insurance premiums seems just plain daft and then at the other end of the scale you have property based taxes that in my opinion are largely unjust and much more unfair than a form of poll tax for obvious reasons.

Inheritance tax and any future proposed wealth tax together with wealth related scales and cut off points for paying for social care in old age are in most cases grossly unfair. People on minimum wage who do not have the means to save and have never owned property are largely outwith these forms of 'taxation'. The super rich with massive investments and property holdings have well paid consultants to tax plan and can for the most part can legally avoid paying these 'taxes'. The burden falls on the middle classes who have prudently saved for old age or to have monies to pass on to their families. There are limits to pass on assets legally during a person's lifetime but you can't get away from the main unfairness of taxing/punishing someone who has saved against someone who has spent all their money.I
Party A saved throughout his/her lifetime and ends up with say a house worth £300k and £200k in investments/savings. This is easily possible from ' relatively modest' income these days and is hit with a tax bill of £70k or forced to pay upwards of £1k a week for residential care in old age on all assets over c. £30k (there are certain safeguards temporarily for partners/spouses still alive). Party B could well have had a better salary throughout working life and theoretically could have accumulated a bigger property/savings lot but chose a different lifestyle, spending all that they earned, borrowing consistently on any property owned right to the end via equity release ending up with say £20k in assets. On death no taxes due. In later life free residential care. All this does is discourage savings encouraging folk to spend all they have. Any tax or requirement to pay for care that can be negated by lashing out £100k on an elongated world cruise or by sticking said sum on some outsider in the 3.30 at York or a single number on the roulette wheel is unjust.

The actual government take on this tax is not huge but has a huge impact on the middle class person as described.

The one consolation in this tax however is that the setting of the rate is not (so far) a devolved power which thankfully stops the SNP and their loony partners in crime the Mad Greens getting their grubby hands on it.

Agree with pretty much all of that.

If people want their homes to come out of inheritance tax their 50% of house shouldnt go to surviving spouse but to children.

If I remember rightly that stops any sale of home to pay for care as surviving spouse only owns 50%

[Returnofrros]

Govt should also make ISA savings exempt from estate.

[Dodbroon]

Agree with pretty much all of that.

If people want their homes to come out of inheritance tax their 50% of house shouldnt go to surviving spouse but to children.

If I remember rightly that stops any sale of home to pay for care as surviving spouse only owns 50%

I think that would depend on the amounts involved. No Inheritance tax is payable between spouses/partner. If amount is big enough the transfer to children could have tax due. Transfers neighbourhood have a limit pa and I think

[Dodbroon]

Govt should also make ISA savings exempt from estate.

Agree with that!