Jail the tax dodging plebs.

Fretwired

jellyroll said:

Fretwired said:

jellyroll said:

Fretwired said:

fretmeister said:

IanSavage said:

£1.5 million would be judged as quite a large inheritance by most. Just sayin'.

Certainly is.

But the money has already been taxed once. Shouldn't be taxed twice.

Exactly.

In a recent case a son who had lived with his mother for 30 years was forced to sell the family home to pay the Inheritance Tax bill thus making him homeless as he couldn't afford to buy a house in the area in which he lived with what was left. Daft.

The alternative would be to scrap IHT .....but then the transfer of the house to the son would be hit by capital gains tax....so the answer would be broadly the same. 

Or not tax family homes that people actually live in. Tax second homes and property sales, but don't force family members to sell their home to pay tax.

We accept the principle of taxing income - that people have actually WORKED for. Why not tax windfalls - for which the recipient has done sweet FA? 

Because there is no 'windfall' until a property is sold. If mother and son live in a house and the mother dies why shouldn't she be able to pass the property on for her son to live in? A house is a home not a commodity for governments to tax when they feel like it. There will be more situations like this as children get divorced and move in with parents or become carers to older people [thus freeing up NHS resources]. Tax rules shouldn't make people homeless.

And I don't agree with the concept of windfall ... people pay a lot of money to buy and then maintain a house. I've on my third kitchen and have replaced the bathrooms in my house three times as well as other major repairs and am about to have the roof retiled. I already pay tax on all these activities (VAT) and I pay a property tax, income tax, tax on petrol ... why do we have to pay so much tax? I'm not a millionaire and I don't want to fund foreign wars or aircraft carriers ...

jellyroll

Drew_fx said:

Alright, calm your tits Miss Trotsky.

Moobs, actually.

jellyroll

Fretwired said:

Because there is no 'windfall' until a property is sold. If mother and son live in a house and the mother dies why shouldn't she be able to pass the property on for her son to live in? A house is a home not a commodity for governments to tax when they feel like it. There will be more situations like this as children get divorced and move in with parents or become carers to older people [thus freeing up NHS resources]. Tax rules shouldn't make people homeless.

And I don't agree with the concept of windfall ... people pay a lot of money to buy and then maintain a house. I've on my third kitchen and have replaced the bathrooms in my house three times as well as other major repairs and am about to have the roof retiled. I already pay tax on all these activities (VAT) and I pay a property tax, income tax, tax on petrol ... why do we have to pay so much tax? I'm not a millionaire and I don't want to fund foreign wars or aircraft carriers ...

I would say that the son getting a free house is a windfall for him. The fact that the owner spends money on the kitchen or whatever doesn't make it less of a windfall for the recipient (actually, quite the opposite). 

On the child having to sell the house to pay the tax. My view is tough sh*t!!!  

Drew_TNBD

jellyroll said:

Fretwired said:

Because there is no 'windfall' until a property is sold. If mother and son live in a house and the mother dies why shouldn't she be able to pass the property on for her son to live in? A house is a home not a commodity for governments to tax when they feel like it. There will be more situations like this as children get divorced and move in with parents or become carers to older people [thus freeing up NHS resources]. Tax rules shouldn't make people homeless.

And I don't agree with the concept of windfall ... people pay a lot of money to buy and then maintain a house. I've on my third kitchen and have replaced the bathrooms in my house three times as well as other major repairs and am about to have the roof retiled. I already pay tax on all these activities (VAT) and I pay a property tax, income tax, tax on petrol ... why do we have to pay so much tax? I'm not a millionaire and I don't want to fund foreign wars or aircraft carriers ...

I would say that the son getting a free house is a windfall for him. The fact that the owner spends money on the kitchen or whatever doesn't make it less of a windfall for the recipient (actually, quite the opposite). 

On the child having to sell the house to pay the tax. My view is tough sh*t!!!  

Why are you acting this way?

fretmeister

Fretwired said:

jellyroll said:

Fretwired said:

jellyroll said:

Fretwired said:

fretmeister said:

IanSavage said:

£1.5 million would be judged as quite a large inheritance by most. Just sayin'.

Certainly is.

But the money has already been taxed once. Shouldn't be taxed twice.

Exactly.

In a recent case a son who had lived with his mother for 30 years was forced to sell the family home to pay the Inheritance Tax bill thus making him homeless as he couldn't afford to buy a house in the area in which he lived with what was left. Daft.

The alternative would be to scrap IHT .....but then the transfer of the house to the son would be hit by capital gains tax....so the answer would be broadly the same. 

Or not tax family homes that people actually live in. Tax second homes and property sales, but don't force family members to sell their home to pay tax.

We accept the principle of taxing income - that people have actually WORKED for. Why not tax windfalls - for which the recipient has done sweet FA? 

Because there is no 'windfall' until a property is sold. If mother and son live in a house and the mother dies why shouldn't she be able to pass the property on for her son to live in? A house is a home not a commodity for governments to tax when they feel like it. There will be more situations like this as children get divorced and move in with parents or become carers to older people [thus freeing up NHS resources]. Tax rules shouldn't make people homeless.

And I don't agree with the concept of windfall ... people pay a lot of money to buy and then maintain a house. I've on my third kitchen and have replaced the bathrooms in my house three times as well as other major repairs and am about to have the roof retiled. I already pay tax on all these activities (VAT) and I pay a property tax, income tax, tax on petrol ... why do we have to pay so much tax? I'm not a millionaire and I don't want to fund foreign wars or aircraft carriers ...

Not just that.

When people get a "windfall" they are effectively forced to spend some of it on lawyers / accountants / sometimes even court fees if the Will is inadequate.

IHT is charged on the gross value of the estate not net after unavoidable expenses are paid.

And then what do the beneficiaries do with this "windfall" - they spend it. Hardly anything is zero VAT rated anymore so the money gets spent on VAT rated items.

So a windfall of £100,000 for example (I'm ignoring the IHT boundaries) has a post IHT value of £60,000.

Somewhere that £60,000 is going to get spent on vat rated items. Net value is only £50,000.

And that original £100K was already taxed when the deceased was still alive.

Fretwired

fretmeister said:

Fretwired said:

jellyroll said:

Fretwired said:

jellyroll said:

Fretwired said:

fretmeister said:

IanSavage said:

£1.5 million would be judged as quite a large inheritance by most. Just sayin'.

Certainly is.

But the money has already been taxed once. Shouldn't be taxed twice.

Exactly.

In a recent case a son who had lived with his mother for 30 years was forced to sell the family home to pay the Inheritance Tax bill thus making him homeless as he couldn't afford to buy a house in the area in which he lived with what was left. Daft.

The alternative would be to scrap IHT .....but then the transfer of the house to the son would be hit by capital gains tax....so the answer would be broadly the same. 

Or not tax family homes that people actually live in. Tax second homes and property sales, but don't force family members to sell their home to pay tax.

We accept the principle of taxing income - that people have actually WORKED for. Why not tax windfalls - for which the recipient has done sweet FA? 

Because there is no 'windfall' until a property is sold. If mother and son live in a house and the mother dies why shouldn't she be able to pass the property on for her son to live in? A house is a home not a commodity for governments to tax when they feel like it. There will be more situations like this as children get divorced and move in with parents or become carers to older people [thus freeing up NHS resources]. Tax rules shouldn't make people homeless.

And I don't agree with the concept of windfall ... people pay a lot of money to buy and then maintain a house. I've on my third kitchen and have replaced the bathrooms in my house three times as well as other major repairs and am about to have the roof retiled. I already pay tax on all these activities (VAT) and I pay a property tax, income tax, tax on petrol ... why do we have to pay so much tax? I'm not a millionaire and I don't want to fund foreign wars or aircraft carriers ...

Not just that.

When people get a "windfall" they are effectively forced to spend some of it on lawyers / accountants / sometimes even court fees if the Will is inadequate.

IHT is charged on the gross value of the estate not net after unavoidable expenses are paid.

And then what do the beneficiaries do with this "windfall" - they spend it. Hardly anything is zero VAT rated anymore so the money gets spent on VAT rated items.

So a windfall of £100,000 for example (I'm ignoring the IHT boundaries) has a post IHT value of £60,000.

Somewhere that £60,000 is going to get spent on vat rated items. Net value is only £50,000.

And that original £100K was already taxed when the deceased was still alive.

Excellent points Fret .. have a wisdom ..

Drew_TNBD

Yeah but the likes of JellyBelly's answer to all of that: OH BOOHOO! I wont ever have to deal with it, so fuck anyone who has access to money with more than two zeroes at the end of it!!!

Fretwired

jellyroll said:

Fretwired said:

Because there is no 'windfall' until a property is sold. If mother and son live in a house and the mother dies why shouldn't she be able to pass the property on for her son to live in? A house is a home not a commodity for governments to tax when they feel like it. There will be more situations like this as children get divorced and move in with parents or become carers to older people [thus freeing up NHS resources]. Tax rules shouldn't make people homeless.

And I don't agree with the concept of windfall ... people pay a lot of money to buy and then maintain a house. I've on my third kitchen and have replaced the bathrooms in my house three times as well as other major repairs and am about to have the roof retiled. I already pay tax on all these activities (VAT) and I pay a property tax, income tax, tax on petrol ... why do we have to pay so much tax? I'm not a millionaire and I don't want to fund foreign wars or aircraft carriers ...

I would say that the son getting a free house is a windfall for him. The fact that the owner spends money on the kitchen or whatever doesn't make it less of a windfall for the recipient (actually, quite the opposite). 

On the child having to sell the house to pay the tax. My view is tough sh*t!!!  

I take it you're not a home owner then ... you'd be happy to see someone made homeless to pay tax. You're just heartless.

jellyroll

Drew_fx said:

Yeah but the likes of JellyBelly's answer to all of that: OH BOOHOO! I wont ever have to deal with it, so fuck anyone who has access to money with more than two zeroes at the end of it!!!

Incorrect.

chillidoggy

I think it's the personal 'unearned income' principle which successive governments adhere to. I also detect the politics of envy creeping in, too.

I believe that transfers of property and cash between family members should be free of any tax liability, certainly immediate family members, anyway.

 

jellyroll

fretmeister said:

Not just that.

When people get a "windfall" they are effectively forced to spend some of it on lawyers / accountants / sometimes even court fees if the Will is inadequate.

IHT is charged on the gross value of the estate not net after unavoidable expenses are paid.

And then what do the beneficiaries do with this "windfall" - they spend it. Hardly anything is zero VAT rated anymore so the money gets spent on VAT rated items.

So a windfall of £100,000 for example (I'm ignoring the IHT boundaries) has a post IHT value of £60,000.

Somewhere that £60,000 is going to get spent on vat rated items. Net value is only £50,000.

And that original £100K was already taxed when the deceased was still alive.

Yeah, we pay tax. It's called SOCIETY. 

Drew_TNBD

jellyroll said:

Yeah, we pay tax. It's called SOCIETY. 

No. It's called systemic theft.

jellyroll

chillidoggy said:

 I also detect the politics of envy creeping in, too.

You guys make me laugh. Because I'm advocating inheritance tax, it could only be because it will never affect me, couldn't it? Presumptuous, narrow- minded, inward looking gentlemen. 

fretmeister

jellyroll said:

fretmeister said:

Not just that.

When people get a "windfall" they are effectively forced to spend some of it on lawyers / accountants / sometimes even court fees if the Will is inadequate.

IHT is charged on the gross value of the estate not net after unavoidable expenses are paid.

And then what do the beneficiaries do with this "windfall" - they spend it. Hardly anything is zero VAT rated anymore so the money gets spent on VAT rated items.

So a windfall of £100,000 for example (I'm ignoring the IHT boundaries) has a post IHT value of £60,000.

Somewhere that £60,000 is going to get spent on vat rated items. Net value is only £50,000.

And that original £100K was already taxed when the deceased was still alive.

Yeah, we pay tax. It's called SOCIETY. 

I don't have a problem with paying tax at all.

But I do have a problem with paying tax twice on the same thing. That is bullshit.

In any other subject paying twice for the same thing would be theft.

Drew_TNBD

jellyroll said:

chillidoggy said:

 I also detect the politics of envy creeping in, too.

You guys make me laugh. Because I'm advocating inheritance tax, it could only be because it will never affect me, couldn't it? Presumptuous, narrow- minded, inward looking gentlemen. 

You don't strike me as the type who has ever worked for anything.

jellyroll

Drew_fx said:

jellyroll said:

chillidoggy said:

 I also detect the politics of envy creeping in, too.

You guys make me laugh. Because I'm advocating inheritance tax, it could only be because it will never affect me, couldn't it? Presumptuous, narrow- minded, inward looking gentlemen. 

You don't strike me as the type who has ever worked for anything.

Oh? What type do I strike you as?

Fretwired

jellyroll said:

fretmeister said:

Not just that.

When people get a "windfall" they are effectively forced to spend some of it on lawyers / accountants / sometimes even court fees if the Will is inadequate.

IHT is charged on the gross value of the estate not net after unavoidable expenses are paid.

And then what do the beneficiaries do with this "windfall" - they spend it. Hardly anything is zero VAT rated anymore so the money gets spent on VAT rated items.

So a windfall of £100,000 for example (I'm ignoring the IHT boundaries) has a post IHT value of £60,000.

Somewhere that £60,000 is going to get spent on vat rated items. Net value is only £50,000.

And that original £100K was already taxed when the deceased was still alive.

Yeah, we pay tax. It's called SOCIETY. 

I thought you lefties don't believe in society.

You ought to ask the question "why do we pay so much tax and yet there are still people who need food banks" .. I'll help you here .. governments are run by professional politicians who are incompetent .. look at the debt they've racked up.

You don't like the idea of someone benefiting from their parents hard work. I don't like the idea of some fat slob getting paid via my hard work to sit on the sofa all day watching Jeremy Kyle, and then getting laid by as many blokes as possible so she can pop out babies to boost her benefits and get a big house.

Drew_TNBD

jellyroll said:

Drew_fx said:

jellyroll said:

chillidoggy said:

 I also detect the politics of envy creeping in, too.

You guys make me laugh. Because I'm advocating inheritance tax, it could only be because it will never affect me, couldn't it? Presumptuous, narrow- minded, inward looking gentlemen. 

You don't strike me as the type who has ever worked for anything.

Oh? What type do I strike you as?

The type who'd just sorta sneer at everyone's accomplishments. Not saying you ARE this of course... just how you come across mate!

jellyroll

Fretwired said:

You ought to ask the question "why do we pay so much tax and yet there are still people who need food banks" .. I'll help you here .. governments are run by professional politicians who are incompetent .. look at the debt they've racked up.

You don't like the idea of someone benefiting from their parents hard work. I don't like the idea of some fat slob getting paid via my hard work to sit on the sofa all day watching Jeremy Kyle, and then getting laid by as many blokes as possible so she can pop out babies to boost her benefits and get a big house.

None of us like wastage and inefficency. And FWIW, I'm not a believer in using taxation to re-distribute wealth. I see it as there being a bill that needs paying for the country to run effectively and the govt needs to fund that somehow. Yes, there are areas where govts (of all colours) could do a better job of using the dosh efficiently but that doesn't change my view that taxing folk at the point they inherit wealth is not unreasonable. 

Drew_TNBD

jellyroll said:

Fretwired said:

You ought to ask the question "why do we pay so much tax and yet there are still people who need food banks" .. I'll help you here .. governments are run by professional politicians who are incompetent .. look at the debt they've racked up.

You don't like the idea of someone benefiting from their parents hard work. I don't like the idea of some fat slob getting paid via my hard work to sit on the sofa all day watching Jeremy Kyle, and then getting laid by as many blokes as possible so she can pop out babies to boost her benefits and get a big house.

None of us like wastage and inefficency. And FWIW, I'm not a believer in using taxation to re-distribute wealth. I see it as there being a bill that needs paying for the country to run effectively and the govt needs to fund that somehow. Yes, there are areas where govts (of all colours) could do a better job of using the dosh efficiently but that doesn't change my view that taxing folk at the point they inherit wealth is not unreasonable. 

So ultimately, you do believe in taxing goods and services and money multiple times throughout the transactional process?