But Gonz
People should pay taxes, but within the rules. The rules are that trusts etc can take money out of the estate, and if you have an estate worth over £325000 then you can afford the £500 to go and see an IFA.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sun 15 Jul 2012, 19:31, 1 reply, 13 years ago)

It just seems like a kick in the teeth at a particulary bad time.
Totally agree, I doubt you'd find anyone with those sorts of assets who _doesn't_ see an IFA; they'd be stupid, like not getting insurance. But my point is, well, there are two. The first one is that it feels like the goverment are proftering on greif... I see it as, if you're in that position, you've paid tax all your life, you've done 'your bit' - and more soo. It's like the goverment values the more affluent as a financial gain if dead - the oppersite to the principles on which the NHS was founded.

And my second point is, and this goes ditto for the banking and tax evaision; the rule should be clear, equal and concise for everyone - no matter what your knowledge of the law is.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Sun 15 Jul 2012, 19:40, Reply)

Wealthy people should pay more tax than poorer people.
Both in cash terms and in percentage of income terms. IHT is a part of this, it was originally only levied on the largest estates but the rate hasn't risen at the same pace as house price inflation so it affects more people now.

Taxing the dead on their estate isn't tasteless or in opposition to social principles at all- it's a way of gathering tax receipts when large amounts of cash are released.

It's everyone's responsibility to pay tax, but nobody should have to pay any more than they legally have to. David Cameron criticising anyone for tax evasion is rich- the Government make laws, including tax laws, so if they wanted to, they could hire the country's best tax lawyers and accountants and make the income tax laws watertight, or vastly increase the PAYE requirement but choose not to.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sun 15 Jul 2012, 19:45, Reply)

I donno man
It just seems there is a spot somewhere, where it's worth pissing it up the wall rather than passing it down.

I'm only half (ok, 2/3) saying inheritance tax, as a principle is wrong, it's more that my feelings about how they go about doing it is. I think my opinion (and it is that; just an opinion, purly based on self interest without research) would change if there was an even ground for everyone, and not based on the knowledge of a consultant.

Totally agree that Camron is pretty rich (pun unintentional) in berating people for finding loop holes whilst doing nothing to adjust them. Although I suppose, given the demographic of parliment, it isn't in their self interests to close them.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Sun 15 Jul 2012, 20:00, Reply)

There is even ground for everyone though.
For couples, put the house in joint names and take out a life insurance policy which will cover the IHT liability. If you're reasonably sure that there will be a 50 grand tax bill, then pay the £30 or so a month premium for a 50K life policy. That way, at death there will be the money to pay the tax bill and not have to sell the house. Plus, there's no way that the insurance premiums will have amounted to anything approaching the 50K payout.

It's not difficult and not that expensive.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sun 15 Jul 2012, 20:06, Reply)

But then there is the argument
That paying tax on income that has already been tax isn't cricket.
( JeffTheDogFucker Can you dig it?, Sun 15 Jul 2012, 20:21, Reply)

IHT is a tax on wealth, not income.
And your income gets taxed three times anyway.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sun 15 Jul 2012, 20:24, Reply)

YMT is a tax on Your Mum.

( JeffTheDogFucker Can you dig it?, Sun 15 Jul 2012, 20:36, Reply)