NPR

Blackmac wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2023 7:38 pm

Sandstorm wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2023 6:19 pm Don’t knock ‘Spoons. Nowhere else can you get an ice-cold Bud Light pint. Mmmmm.

To be fair. He heavily supports local craft beer breweries and they always have a great selection of beers at good prices.

My wife and I were in Edinburgh a few weeks ago and a pint of Stewart's IPA and a large wine was £16 in a pub in the west end. Same drinks in the Spoons were less than £8.

Raggs wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2023 2:40 pm 700k houses is roughly 2.5%. That's not many.

Assets worth nearly £1m. Meaning they're likely already not qualifying for IHT. On top of that, how much of those assets are also pensions? Which don't count towards IHT anyway.

EDIT- It's still a tiny minority that will be effected by IHT by any degree.

C69 wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2023 3:46 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2023 2:24 pm

C69 wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2023 2:15 pm
Martin may be a bellend but he isn't the worst honours recipient I've ever seen.

That speaks more to how low standards have become than anything.

Exactly my point.
I would abolish the whole system, it's as anachronistic as the HOL.

weegie01 wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2023 8:00 pm

Raggs wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2023 2:40 pm 700k houses is roughly 2.5%. That's not many.

Assets worth nearly £1m. Meaning they're likely already not qualifying for IHT. On top of that, how much of those assets are also pensions? Which don't count towards IHT anyway.

EDIT- It's still a tiny minority that will be effected by IHT by any degree.

A minority of the population as a whole, but a relatively larger number of those who are relevant in a conversation about direct taxes since most people pay very little tax.

We can argue whether the numbers are significant, but I don't think dismissing the effects of IHT just because it does not affect many people is a valid argument. IHT is unfair because it is hitting the wrong people regardless of the number.

IHT in its various forms was targetted at the very rich. More and more people who were never part of the target group are being included by fiscal drag and improved asset values. They are not any richer relatively to what they were in the past, but are now liable for IHT when they had no need to worry about it in the past. Meanwhile those who were the intended targets plan their way out of paying it. The target audience are not paying, those of relatively modest means to them are. Predictions are that the number of people liable for IHT will continue to rise as the thresholds decline in real terms.

My wife is the tax managing partner of a large accounting firm. I appreciate that as a result of that our tax planning is more arcane than most, but there very definitely is a potential liability on her pension pot on her death. Though that is not so in every case.

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 9:39 am

weegie01 wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2023 8:00 pm

Raggs wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2023 2:40 pm 700k houses is roughly 2.5%. That's not many.

Assets worth nearly £1m. Meaning they're likely already not qualifying for IHT. On top of that, how much of those assets are also pensions? Which don't count towards IHT anyway.

EDIT- It's still a tiny minority that will be effected by IHT by any degree.

A minority of the population as a whole, but a relatively larger number of those who are relevant in a conversation about direct taxes since most people pay very little tax.

We can argue whether the numbers are significant, but I don't think dismissing the effects of IHT just because it does not affect many people is a valid argument. IHT is unfair because it is hitting the wrong people regardless of the number.

IHT in its various forms was targetted at the very rich. More and more people who were never part of the target group are being included by fiscal drag and improved asset values. They are not any richer relatively to what they were in the past, but are now liable for IHT when they had no need to worry about it in the past. Meanwhile those who were the intended targets plan their way out of paying it. The target audience are not paying, those of relatively modest means to them are. Predictions are that the number of people liable for IHT will continue to rise as the thresholds decline in real terms.

My wife is the tax managing partner of a large accounting firm. I appreciate that as a result of that our tax planning is more arcane than most, but there very definitely is a potential liability on her pension pot on her death. Though that is not so in every case.

We discussed this a few weeks ago - really struggle to see how it is hard to grasp that massive increases in house prices = lots more people paying IHT than has been traditionally the case. Most of the people in that cateogry are alive, but ageing

C69 wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 9:44 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 9:39 am

weegie01 wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2023 8:00 pm

A minority of the population as a whole, but a relatively larger number of those who are relevant in a conversation about direct taxes since most people pay very little tax.

We can argue whether the numbers are significant, but I don't think dismissing the effects of IHT just because it does not affect many people is a valid argument. IHT is unfair because it is hitting the wrong people regardless of the number.

IHT in its various forms was targetted at the very rich. More and more people who were never part of the target group are being included by fiscal drag and improved asset values. They are not any richer relatively to what they were in the past, but are now liable for IHT when they had no need to worry about it in the past. Meanwhile those who were the intended targets plan their way out of paying it. The target audience are not paying, those of relatively modest means to them are. Predictions are that the number of people liable for IHT will continue to rise as the thresholds decline in real terms.

My wife is the tax managing partner of a large accounting firm. I appreciate that as a result of that our tax planning is more arcane than most, but there very definitely is a potential liability on her pension pot on her death. Though that is not so in every case.

We discussed this a few weeks ago - really struggle to see how it is hard to grasp that massive increases in house prices = lots more people paying IHT than has been traditionally the case. Most of the people in that cateogry are alive, but ageing

So what if a few people pay more tax?
Such small numbers as has been explained to you time and time again.

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 11:27 am

C69 wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 9:44 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 9:39 am
We discussed this a few weeks ago - really struggle to see how it is hard to grasp that massive increases in house prices = lots more people paying IHT than has been traditionally the case. Most of the people in that cateogry are alive, but ageing

So what if a few people pay more tax?
Such small numbers as has been explained to you time and time again.

It’s a larger and larger number each year, in areas of the country the Tories need to win. How are you not getting the politics of this? I haven’t expressed an opinion either way on its policy merits, don’t anticipate being affected personally by it for a long time.

C69 wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 11:48 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 11:27 am

C69 wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 9:44 am So what if a few people pay more tax?
Such small numbers as has been explained to you time and time again.

It’s a larger and larger number each year, in areas of the country the Tories need to win. How are you not getting the politics of this? I haven’t expressed an opinion either way on its policy merits, don’t anticipate being affected personally by it for a long time.

Tough titties, the numbers are tiny

weegie01 wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 11:09 pm

C69 wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 11:48 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 11:27 am
It’s a larger and larger number each year, in areas of the country the Tories need to win. How are you not getting the politics of this? I haven’t expressed an opinion either way on its policy merits, don’t anticipate being affected personally by it for a long time.

Tough titties, the numbers are tiny

That is the best argument you have? The logic, the impact of a tax on individuals, the fairness of the tax, the coherence of the tax, whether it is actually doing what was intended etc, none of it matters as long as the numbers affected are small?

C69 wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 8:27 am

weegie01 wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 11:09 pm

C69 wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 11:48 am

Tough titties, the numbers are tiny

That is the best argument you have? The logic, the impact of a tax on individuals, the fairness of the tax, the coherence of the tax, whether it is actually doing what was intended etc, none of it matters as long as the numbers affected are small?

I don't care a jot if a tiny amount of rich individuals are taxed on the wealth of their dead benefactors.

Yes I know it's more nuanced but it's not a subject that should be a priority at all. Leave it alone it's too peripheral an issue that does not matter. Sort out tax issues that will make a material difference to the many not the few.

shaggy wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 10:09 am Except it is not the rich that are being affected. It is impacting people based on where they live mostly as most wealth is tied to property and just owning a 4-bed house in London suburbia can make you liable.

I know a lot of you hate the fact house prices have risen and you are cheering for a correction and that IHT is therefore karma but let’s not pretend it affects the ‘rich’. It affects teachers, medical professionals, self employed, middle management, business owners, many people that have just worked hard and chosen to invest in their home.

It is just lazy to describe them as ‘’rich’, but then politics of envy has been driven hard by a number of political parties in the last few years so it makes this gotcha acceptable.

shaggy wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 10:09 am Except it is not the rich that are being affected. It is impacting people based on where they live mostly as most wealth is tied to property and just owning a 4-bed house in London suburbia can make you liable.

I know a lot of you hate the fact house prices have risen and you are cheering for a correction and that IHT is therefore karma but let’s not pretend it affects the ‘rich’. It affects teachers, medical professionals, self employed, middle management, business owners, many people that have just worked hard and chosen to invest in their home.

It is just lazy to describe them as ‘’rich’, but then politics of envy has been driven hard by a number of political parties in the last few years so it makes this gotcha acceptable.

shaggy wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 10:09 am Except it is not the rich that are being affected. It is impacting people based on where they live mostly as most wealth is tied to property and just owning a 4-bed house in London suburbia can make you liable.

I know a lot of you hate the fact house prices have risen and you are cheering for a correction and that IHT is therefore karma but let’s not pretend it affects the ‘rich’. It affects teachers, medical professionals, self employed, middle management, business owners, many people that have just worked hard and chosen to invest in their home.

It is just lazy to describe them as ‘’rich’, but then politics of envy has been driven hard by a number of political parties in the last few years so it makes this gotcha acceptable.

shaggy wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 2:47 pm Very predictable responses. None of which invalidate the position that many of the people/families impacted will not be ‘rich’.

shaggy wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 2:47 pm Very predictable responses. None of which invalidate the position that many of the people/families impacted will not be ‘rich’.

Biffer wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 2:54 pm

shaggy wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 2:47 pm Very predictable responses. None of which invalidate the position that many of the people/families impacted will not be ‘rich’.

If you are inheriting more than a million pounds of assets that you didn’t work for, you’re not poverty stricken, and you can afford the tax on it. Sorry if you don’t like that but it’s true.

Jockaline wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 3:06 pm

Biffer wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 2:54 pm

shaggy wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 2:47 pm Very predictable responses. None of which invalidate the position that many of the people/families impacted will not be ‘rich’.

If you are inheriting more than a million pounds of assets that you didn’t work for, you’re not poverty stricken, and you can afford the tax on it. Sorry if you don’t like that but it’s true.

Most of those that can pass it on didn't earn it either, they were beneficiaries of a property market that was allowed to to get out of hand.

Jockaline wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 3:06 pm

Biffer wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 2:54 pm

shaggy wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 2:47 pm Very predictable responses. None of which invalidate the position that many of the people/families impacted will not be ‘rich’.

If you are inheriting more than a million pounds of assets that you didn’t work for, you’re not poverty stricken, and you can afford the tax on it. Sorry if you don’t like that but it’s true.

Most of those that can pass it on didn't earn it either, they were beneficiaries of a property market that was allowed to to get out of hand.

Biffer wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 3:47 pm

Jockaline wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 3:06 pm

Biffer wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 2:54 pm

If you are inheriting more than a million pounds of assets that you didn’t work for, you’re not poverty stricken, and you can afford the tax on it. Sorry if you don’t like that but it’s true.

Most of those that can pass it on didn't earn it either, they were beneficiaries of a property market that was allowed to to get out of hand.

I know. But people always make the ‘he invested at a smart time’ argument, even though it’s bs. But again, it’s the emphasis that I think is important - the dead aren’t paying tax, the living are. And the living definitely didn’t earn it.

dpedin wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 4:46 pm

Biffer wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 3:47 pm

Jockaline wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 3:06 pm

Most of those that can pass it on didn't earn it either, they were beneficiaries of a property market that was allowed to to get out of hand.

I know. But people always make the ‘he invested at a smart time’ argument, even though it’s bs. But again, it’s the emphasis that I think is important - the dead aren’t paying tax, the living are. And the living definitely didn’t earn it.

The average total net wealth per household in the UK is c£300k. This is total assets including house, car, etc less any debt including mortgage, credit, etc. Most net wealth is made up of house value and pension pots. Most of the increase in house value is due to rising housing inflation and is in effect unearned income that hasn't been taxed but is a result of a rising housing market and housing values. My mum and dad bought their bungalow for £4,000 in early 70's and we sold it for £175,000 in 2010 after they had both died - we in effect benefited from £171k increase in value of their home by doing nothing. If you have a net worth of c£1m then you are in the top 15% of the UK in terms of net wealth. If you have a net worth of c£1.4m then you are in the top 10% ie the rich end!

However most estates will be inherited by spouses and/or children and. in these cases the IHT tax free allowance of £325k is increased by £175k to £500k. If the partner of the deceased didnt use their IHT allowance when they died then this can be passed on to create a IHT tax free allowance of c£1m. So in reality most folk will not pay any IHT - 96% didnt in last tax year. Those that do pay IHT will probably have used up all these tax free exemptions and even after that these their estate was still large enough to incur IHT on any amount over and above the tax free element.

So all the shroud waving from those who are saying IHT is unfair, a tax on a tax, etc are essentially trying to defend letting the children of the rich avoid paying tax on unearned income resulting from house ownership and those who have used tax allowances to pay into and grow their private pension pots. I have no problem in these large inheritances being subject to IHT once the appropriate tax free allowances of somewhere between £500k and £1,000k have been used. I am sure those inheriting the 4% of estates which incur IHT will not go broke, starve or go homeless as a result - they might not afford the 2nd home in Cornwall though?

Biffer wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 3:47 pmI know. But people always make the ‘he invested at a smart time’ argument, even though it’s bs. But again, it’s the emphasis that I think is important - the dead aren’t paying tax, the living are. And the living definitely didn’t earn it.

weegie01 wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 4:58 pm

Biffer wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 3:47 pmI know. But people always make the ‘he invested at a smart time’ argument, even though it’s bs. But again, it’s the emphasis that I think is important - the dead aren’t paying tax, the living are. And the living definitely didn’t earn it.

The tax is paid by the estate, not the recipient(s). The beneficiaries have no tax liability, the liability is on the estate and the executor has to discharge it. Nor is it a tax on a transfer as you say above. It is a tax on dying, after it is paid the money gets distributed.

Biffer wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:20 pm

weegie01 wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 4:58 pm

Biffer wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 3:47 pmI know. But people always make the ‘he invested at a smart time’ argument, even though it’s bs. But again, it’s the emphasis that I think is important - the dead aren’t paying tax, the living are. And the living definitely didn’t earn it.

The tax is paid by the estate, not the recipient(s). The beneficiaries have no tax liability, the liability is on the estate and the executor has to discharge it. Nor is it a tax on a transfer as you say above. It is a tax on dying, after it is paid the money gets distributed.

That’s the way it’s set up, but it’s dumb to think of the dead paying tax. It’s being paid by the living, and frankly should be structured that way.

Regardless of that, you can’t say that it’s ever unaffordable or casting anyone into poverty.

weegie01 wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 7:01 pm

Biffer wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:20 pm

weegie01 wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 4:58 pm

The tax is paid by the estate, not the recipient(s). The beneficiaries have no tax liability, the liability is on the estate and the executor has to discharge it. Nor is it a tax on a transfer as you say above. It is a tax on dying, after it is paid the money gets distributed.

That’s the way it’s set up, but it’s dumb to think of the dead paying tax. It’s being paid by the living, and frankly should be structured that way.

Regardless of that, you can’t say that it’s ever unaffordable or casting anyone into poverty.

Why is it dumb to think of it operating the way it was set up? It is explicitly a charge on the estate of the dead, not on the living recipients.

Who has said it is unaffordable or casting anyone into poverty?

Deveron Boy wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 2:54 pm

shaggy wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 2:47 pm Very predictable responses. None of which invalidate the position that many of the people/families impacted will not be ‘rich’.

‘Impacted’ ffs this is all financial upside for beneficiaries- the only ‘impact’ is they will receive a bit less - many people -less than 4% the population? - how do you define rich in this circumstance?

dpedin wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 4:46 pm The average total net wealth per household in the UK is c£300k.

If you have a net worth of c£1m then you are in the top 15% of the UK in terms of net wealth. If you have a net worth of c£1.4m then you are in the top 10% ie the rich end!

So in reality most folk will not pay any IHT - 96% didnt in last tax year. Those that do pay IHT will probably have used up all these tax free exemptions and even after that these their estate was still large enough to incur IHT on any amount over and above the tax free element.

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Jan 01, 2024 12:01 pm Anyway, Happy New Year all, I’m sure in 2024 someone will change their mind on an issue as a result of a post in this thread

Prembore wrote: Mon Jan 01, 2024 12:15 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Jan 01, 2024 12:01 pm Anyway, Happy New Year all, I’m sure in 2024 someone will change their mind on an issue as a result of a post in this thread

If I were a floating voter I think the sheer weight of preening piety in this thread would make me plump for the Tories.