Road rules0 min ago
Inheritance tax
18 Answers
Is there anybody here who thinks inheritance tax if fair. If you think inheritance tax is fair could you write a short justification of it please.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by GuavaHalf. 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.I can see the arguement for inhertiance tax: It helps prevent the mass-accumulation of wealth by those who have done nothing to create that wealth - society may be more balanced because of it. However, I can see that the mega-rich are often able to avoid the tax and it is the less well off that often get stung.
This is an evil tax: it is tax on taxed income - we pay far too much tax in this country as it is, and it is the final insult to be taxed to die. Disgraceful. Utterly utterly disgraceful.
I am sick to death of paying an exhorbitant amount of tax, whether it be income tax, NI (which is a tax, no matter what that slimey b45tard Gordon Brown says it is - I have Private Medical Insurance and two pensions to look after me - you should not be stealing extra money from me for NI).
And I really resent paying tax to provide benefits for work shy sc4m bags who choose not to work: in my area of the country, if you are not working you are just simply lazy. Simple solution, don't pay the bone idle chavs a penny, and if they breed (which they all do) take the kid away from them and give it to decent people who can't have children.
Yes, I am very passionate about this subject, because I detest being screwed to pay for others.
An interesting range of views. I do not agree that we pay too much tax. We cannot expect to have the public services we want without paying for them. Scubaboy - in the great scheme of things the 'spongers and wasters' account for very little of total government expenditure. I agree, of course, that government expenditure should be carefully targeted and waste avoided.
The mass accumulation of wealth arguement (pigface) clearly does not work as there is massive accumulation of wealth by certain families. The rich can avoid the tax by complex trust and overseas holdings beyond what the rest of us can afford.
My main problem is this. A family is not very well off but their house - an old Victorian detached house has been in ht family for years. The parent is old and it can be assumed will die in the next couple of years. The only child, who has always lived in the house, and still does, has only a modest income. When the parent dies he will have to sell the house he has lived in all his life to pay the tax. How is this fair?
I'm sorry but IHT is not an evil or wrong tax. The IHT system we have in this country is flawed in that it is half-hearted but the principle of IHT is correct. An individual who lives and works within society has the benefit of his possession while alive. However for a meritocracy to exist we should all start on a level playing field. This is clearly not the case when you have people who are given large amounts of money from their parents without earning it. At the same time the income from IHT can be used to improve schooling and public support services to give everybody the same high level of education and support allowing the hardworking and gifted to flourish, rather than the ones with rich parents.
Turning to the issue of family homes, the Nil Rate Band (NRB) currently around �255,000 is designed to protect family homes. This is under threat from the huge increases in house prices, but is still a fairly generous amount. Finally IHT hits your dead, you don't pay the tax your workshy lazy sprogs do and they didn't lift a finger to earn it, and that's unfair?
It should be fair. But like everything else, the filthy rich accountants, solicitors etc. who know all the dodges and are the biggest rogues of all, get away with not paying any and the likes of Mr and Mrs Average end up getting clobbered. This just echos what pigface has says, but it makes me so mad I just had to put something on here.
With the increases in property prices, this is just another way for Labour to clobber the middle class: In my part of the country the threshold is just simply too low, with vitually all homes exceeding this modest limit, and these homes aren't all occupied by solicitors and accountants, they are also occupied by nurses, teachers, civil servants etc....
But I guess this is just an argument that could never be resolved between the left and the right - I am middle right and firmly believe we should look after ourselves, and if that means having my own pensions, private medical insurance, permanent health insurance, private schooling etc then so be it.
The left, by and large, believe in a nanny state, and unfortunately this belief has filtered down to the work shy who believe the state owes them and their offspring a living.
And why shouldn't I pass on 100% of my money/assets to my daughter upon my death? And by careful use of accountants and solicitors, that's exactly what I intend to do.