Does Everyone Actually Still Have Turkey...
Christmas0 min ago
Work Hard And Provide For Your Retirement........
70 Answers
....and Labour will give it to someone who didn't.
Has this theiving government no shame?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Are you against IHT altogether TTT (and I can see an argument for being against it in principle)?" - yes totally, for one thing it's just getting the cash directly rather than waiting for the money to be spent on something. Most government income is from indirect taxation. My question is why are you not against IHT?
untitled: "because you know that your own savings will give you a higher quality of life (as they should). " - I might especially if I'm doolally! I may look for other places for my estate though. That letter is a close parallel to my own life and I'd hate to leave slabs of dosh for this anti British shower to lavish on gawd knows what.
I'm sure most people in this position will find ways round it... the tax advisors will conjure up more imaginative means involving trusts or similar for those like him and you.
I think the WFA removal for pensioners earning under £13000 a year is far more cruel.
And I'm not convinced the pension pot treatment is double taxation. One is paid by the estate, the other is paid as a tax on drawn down income which has always been the case from a drawdown
I am not sure how he gets to his figures.
There is an uplift for the exemption for leaving the house to yor children. This means there is more tax frree amount if a parent leaves the house to the children. I cant see how they pay incoome tax on residue
Editors may not check for valid content - as well we know on AB
The old man must be as rich as Hades
"The government estimates that, out of around 213,000 estates with inheritable pension wealth in 2027 to 2028, 10,500 estates – or around 1.5% of total UK deaths - will become liable to pay Inheritance Tax where this would not previously have been the case. Around 38,500 estates will pay more Inheritance Tax than would previously have been the case. This group are forecast to have an existing average Inheritance Tax liability of £169,000, increasing by around £34,000 on average when pension assets are included in the value of the estate."
NMA: "And I'm not convinced the pension pot treatment is double taxation. One is paid by the estate, the other is paid as a tax on drawn down income which has always been the case from a drawdown" - but both are from the same pot of money. take 100k so tax it and leave 60 k now charge income tax on the 60k ......surely you can see that is taxing money that is already taxed? (figures for example only nitpickers)
“…you're not going to do that though are you tora... because you know that your own savings will give you a higher quality of life (as they should).”
Maybe he won’t. But many parent pensioners endeavour to leave as much as they can to their children. Some go to ridiculous lengths to do so. I know one couple who are quite well off but won’t spend a penny unless It’s necessary as they want to leave it all to their children, who probably already have far more money and assets than their parents ever had. Others are not so parsimonious.
But IHT introduces many examples of blatantly unfair double taxation. The pension pot issue highlighted here is one but there are far simpler examples. Just consider cash. If somebody has worked all their lives and managed to save £100,000 which is kept in the bank, when they die their beneficiaries will pay £40,000 of it to the Exchequer. But all of that sum will have seen income tax at the appropriate rate paid as will any interest it may have earned. There is simply no justification for taxing it just because it has changed hands upon a death. In fact the same argument can be made for almost anything that is left in a will. Cash will have been taxed as it is received, “Hard” assets (such as property) will be subject to Capital Gains Tax if they are sold. In fact that’s the simplest way to deal with the farm issue. No IHT should be levied unless the farm is sold.
“And I'm not convinced the pension pot treatment is double taxation. One is paid by the estate, the other is paid as a tax on drawn down income which has always been the case from a drawdown.”
Of course it is. It’s the same sum of money. If there had been no death the money would have remained where it was and the only tax payable would be on the drawdown. If the fund holder was lucky enough to have survived until his pot ran out, it would only have raised the tax on the drawdown and the extra raised through IHT would not have been realised. The IHT is payable simply because the money has transferred from one person to another courtesy of a death and the Labour Party is inherently opposed to the retention of wealth.
However, we must expect more of his because Labour governments have an insatiable appetite for vast sums of other people’s money and they will find every way they can to tax anything, anywhere, anytime. Because, of course, they can spend your money far more wisely than you or your children can.
I donm't think your example works TTT.
Take 100000. Okay let's assume 40% of it goes as there's lots of other things to make the estate subject to IHT. If it had been cash it would always have been 40% IHT. They've just exptended teh scope to include a pot. So that's brought the pot down to 60k. The receipent draws down say 6K a year for 10 years. If they have no other income there's no tax. If they are a taxpayer they pay 20,40 or 45% tax. But the deceased would previously have paying income tax on the income.
Anyway, I doubt the Southport rioters will be out again on this issue.
I keep telling you, Starmer isn't Labour, he's a Tory plant employing the usual Tory Dirty Tricks to destroy from the inside.
Instead of repeated bitterness at your overwhelming defeat you should be celebrating your hero's treachery. Lighten up (and use a spellchecker, it looks tidier).
And I've also told you before, unpleasant epithets instead of hard evidence don't help your case, they just make your behaviour look childish.
