Dubstepforum.com

Riddles wrote:

Agent 47 wrote:how much u gettin tom?

n e chance u cud lend us a tenner?

mate i bought you that bottle of cider the other day

oh shit yeah

thnx for that


& the inheritance tax does kinda such tho yeah :/

guess what magmas sayin is true though, if your being left 400k u should probably contribute a bit to the country

Agent 47 wrote: if your being left 400k u should probably contribute a bit to the country

400k isn't a whole lot though...a decent sized three bed house by itself would take you over the threshold depending on what part of the country you live in.


And depending on your own finances at the time, you might well have to sell the property to pay the tax anyway;

If you inherit £374,999 you don't have to pay tax.

If you inherit £375,001 you have to pay £150k tax.

Have a word

40% is a fucking rinse imo

we already get taxed 3 times on our earnings isn't it enough that we don't get taxed a fourth time?

i'm all for rich people having to pay more taxes than us poor folk but its just mean taxing people four times

The rich can afford to get around/avoid the worst of it though. Once again it seems to be the middle classes that'll get stung the most..

Laszlo wrote:The rich can afford to get around/avoid the worst of it though. Once again it seems to be the middle classes that'll get stung the most..

yeah, quick trip to somewhere like switzerland where there isn't inheritance tax and all is well.

I'm thinking more about being able to afford the lawyers/accountants to set up trust funds and/or move/hide the assets.

ahh yeah i suppose that too

It's not a stretch to set up a 'holdings company' and transfer all your assets in there...which is exactly what David Cameron's dad did to get around it with Blairmore Holdings to avoid paying on £25m or so.

i'm sure my dad and his dodgy accountant will find a way around it tbh

m8son wrote:i'm sure my dad and his dodgy accountant will find a way around it tbh

read that as dogey acountant and was expecting a pic to accompany it

looooool

I've never really thought about the rates or thresholds (40% does seem high but £400k doesn't seem too terrible - if you can leave your house to your kids, that's probably fair enough), but in principle I really don't see a problem. However much you leave and however hard you worked for it, it's still free money that the child has not had to toil for whatsoever - if they went and slaved over an overtime packed career to put 400k in the bank or buy themselves a 3-bed, they'd get taxed on more of it (40% on everything over 35k) - when getting money for doing zero work apart from being born to rich parents, it seems a tiny bit spoilt to think that the country that provided an environment to create that wealth doesn't deserve at least a taste of it. As a citizen of a beautiful country, I realise that every hour's work I do is both for me, my family and for my country. I'm proud of that.

It's a great bonus for kids to get inheritance and I hope my parents have something left over when they pop their clogs (though judging by how many holidays they've taken since retiring, I'm not banking on it ), but just like we don't naturally like the idea of rich kids getting unfair head-starts in life due to nepotism, I don't really see why a 'progressive' country should allow families to eat off an ancestors success for multiple generations. Would we really want Richard Branson's great, great, great Grandkids to never have to lift a finger because an ancestor they'd never met was so successful? Isn't that sort of hereditary privilege exactly what we've been trying to get away from since the turn of the 20th Century?

why not? how does it affect you if richard branson's great great grandkids never have to work? jealousy imo

magma wrote:Commie gibberish

Right, so if someone's parents die and leave them the family home as inheritance, which they immediately have to sell to pay the tax bill, that's fair game?

It doesn't bother me about anyone's wealth.

What should be addressed is people should be able to live fine, having access to good education,healthcare etc without having to rely on inheritance, which I feel should be attainable through income tax.

over 35k you pay 40% tax and over 150k you pay 50% tax, surely that is enough? High earning people take home 38% of their salary after tax. then if they save it, they are taxed again?

magma wrote:..in principle I really don't see a problem. However much you leave and however hard you worked for it, it's still free money that the child has not had to toil for whatsoever

One might argue (me) that the whole reason some (most) people work as hard as they do is because of their children and not for the greater good of the collective. If someone has worked their whole life to provide a better standard of living for their offspring and the government just swoop in and jack 40%, well, like I say, it's a fucking rinse imo.

^^ 40% that has already been taxed.

Exactly