A Netflix Series Featuring A Native...
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
O K - Im Putting This Out There.........
85 Answers
I'm not backing it I'm not saying it's a good idea. All I'm doing is trying to find out from you what the issues are.
100% inheritance tax......no allowance.....when someone dies the government gets the lot.... discuss
100% inheritance tax......no allowance.....when someone dies the government gets the lot.... discuss
Answers
Pixie, I do not think you can assimilate leaving a Will of YOUR possessions to whomsoever you decide with something like FGM. It is comparing apples with pears. In this country testamentary freedom is a law that has been jealously protected by the Courts for centuries - despite the fact that the Wills Act was made in 1837, it has been updated and our legislature...
17:49 Thu 04th Nov 2021
your choice when you hand it over, naomi. I've been thinking in terms of parents and children, though of course that's not always the case. If I'd dropped dead when jno jnr was a babe in arms, would the crown be entitled to my various estates, or should they pass to my spouse so he can be brought up without recourse to welfare payments? I would have thought the latter.
//Authorjno: "I'm free to give everything I own to jno jnr while I'm alive; any parent could do the same. " - yep that's another effect along with Sharon above I think we are starting to see reason emerge from the outrage, keep going//
Not sure there's any outrage?
In my view, financially, everyone is never, and shouldn't be, equal. That would just remove any inventive and motivation to actually work or do anything. If benefits equalled work, we would all just stay home.
But, also, nobody, needs billions passed onto spoilt children or not.... while others are sleeping in cardboard boxes and nobody can see a doctor.
Clearly, it's very much a balance. The question is where to draw the line, rather than whether to.
I would suggest, inheritancewise.... 40% to biological children.... with a cap (nobody needs millions to begin with). 40% tax- for public use and 20% choice... to your children, charity, whoever you like.
Not sure there's any outrage?
In my view, financially, everyone is never, and shouldn't be, equal. That would just remove any inventive and motivation to actually work or do anything. If benefits equalled work, we would all just stay home.
But, also, nobody, needs billions passed onto spoilt children or not.... while others are sleeping in cardboard boxes and nobody can see a doctor.
Clearly, it's very much a balance. The question is where to draw the line, rather than whether to.
I would suggest, inheritancewise.... 40% to biological children.... with a cap (nobody needs millions to begin with). 40% tax- for public use and 20% choice... to your children, charity, whoever you like.
Nobody has handed mea windfall.
I , through hard work and sacrifices have built up financial security.
For what? To ensure a comfortable lifestyle for my partner/wife, whatever and an equally comfortable retirement.
My children do not come into this equation.
The successful children do not need a financial hand out and the unsuccessful do not deserve it.
I am happy with that as well as 100% Inheritance tax.
I , through hard work and sacrifices have built up financial security.
For what? To ensure a comfortable lifestyle for my partner/wife, whatever and an equally comfortable retirement.
My children do not come into this equation.
The successful children do not need a financial hand out and the unsuccessful do not deserve it.
I am happy with that as well as 100% Inheritance tax.
For those of who practice in this area almost exclusively, it would be a death knell to our livelihood!!! So no, I do not support it.
It would certainly encourage spending rather than saving which would be good for the economy.
However, I also think it would take away a right that has been part of our history for hundreds of years - the right of testamentary freedom.
Ignoring children or further generations for one minute, what about the situation where all is in the name of one spouse and that spouse dies. Is the other to be out on the street despite the wealth he or she has helped create?
Sooner or later, we will be in a situation where the state owns everything. OK, those that can do well could buy off the state, to hand it back on their death, but what is the point of that? Why would I invest my capital in an asset that is mine for my lifetime only and then reverts to the state. If one owns something outright, one is more likely to nurture and look after one's investment; if one only has what is effectively a life tenancy, why bother?
It would certainly encourage spending rather than saving which would be good for the economy.
However, I also think it would take away a right that has been part of our history for hundreds of years - the right of testamentary freedom.
Ignoring children or further generations for one minute, what about the situation where all is in the name of one spouse and that spouse dies. Is the other to be out on the street despite the wealth he or she has helped create?
Sooner or later, we will be in a situation where the state owns everything. OK, those that can do well could buy off the state, to hand it back on their death, but what is the point of that? Why would I invest my capital in an asset that is mine for my lifetime only and then reverts to the state. If one owns something outright, one is more likely to nurture and look after one's investment; if one only has what is effectively a life tenancy, why bother?
BM... I would never agree that because something is "tradition", it deserves any respect... FGM, marriage, child brides, sexism and so on.... never an excuse.
Spouses... who equally own something- would clearly be halved, if one died. And surely, given the housing situation.... it would make sense, that not everybody living alone could afford a family house?
For as long as we just go with individual preferences, nobody looks at the bigger picture, and everything gets harder for everyone.
Spouses... who equally own something- would clearly be halved, if one died. And surely, given the housing situation.... it would make sense, that not everybody living alone could afford a family house?
For as long as we just go with individual preferences, nobody looks at the bigger picture, and everything gets harder for everyone.
Zacs, fully agree there is a problem with gov priorities. Unfortunately, I have e ne er been given a list to tick, on what I would prioritise my taxes to be spent on.
However.... inheritances, can be spent or saved- and over a certain amount (as I said), is excessively not needed for spending- and will not go back in.
However.... inheritances, can be spent or saved- and over a certain amount (as I said), is excessively not needed for spending- and will not go back in.
[i] If one owns something outright, one is more likely to nurture and look after one's investment; if one only has what is effectively a life tenancy, why bother?[i]
the child-free are presumably in this position now, but it doesn't stop them spending on their property to suit themselves. I don't buy furniture for the purpose of passing it on to my heir, I do it for myself.
the child-free are presumably in this position now, but it doesn't stop them spending on their property to suit themselves. I don't buy furniture for the purpose of passing it on to my heir, I do it for myself.
