6 Comments »

1. This tax is penalizing a section of the population for which it was not designed.

   I have worked for the whole of my adult life and this includes graduate education and ongoing professional training.

   I have not accumulated any wealth and thus my only inheritance to my children will be my/their home. (our only financial asset).

   Were the threshold to be higher, though still a dubious tax, it would be fairer and more targeted at the population who may have enjoyed a better financial lifestyle, and whose children are more likely to be able to pay it.

   With respect to wealth distribution, this tax is ill aimed.

   R J Allan

   Comment by Ray Allan — 21 Feb 2007 on 12:25 pm | Link

2. This tax is penalizing a section of the population for which it was not designed.

   I have worked for the whole of my adult life and this includes graduate education and ongoing professional training.

   I have not accumulated any wealth and thus my only inheritance to my children will be my/their home. (our only financial asset).

   Were the threshold to be higher, though still a dubious tax, it would be fairer and more targeted at the population who may have enjoyed a better financial lifestyle, and whose children are more likely to be able to pay it.

   With respect to wealth distribution, this tax is ill aimed.

   R J Allan

   Comment by Ray Allan — 21 Feb 2007 on 12:59 pm | Link

3. An unexpected bereavement should not be compounded by sudden heavy taxes on the family property. It would be more just if we had a choice to give the fruits of our life\x92s labour to our family or other beneficiaries rather than it being taken suddenly by the government. An alternative to Inheritance tax could be a Wealth tax at a rate of say 1% per year. This would be similar to transferring an individual\x92s wealth to the nation over a lifetime of 100 years. Judging by currently accepted inflation rates of 2 or 3% it may be expedient to increase the rate of wealth tax above 1% and reduce inflation to zero. It would discourage hoarding of land and property and may reduce their price. The wealth tax on shares could be paid via the company in the same way that income tax is currently paid on dividends. The cost of administrating the Wealth tax could be bourn by the Inland Revenue if Income tax and NI were abolished in favour of a higher VAT rate.

   Comment by Robin Barry — 21 Feb 2007 on 8:24 pm | Link

4. Can I be the only person sick to the back teeth of these comfortably off middle class whingers moaning about inheritance tax?

   A few points;

   1. The idea that inheritance tax thresholds should rise in line with house prices is ridiculous. The steep rise in house prices over the last few years is a transient phase and in all probability they will fall sharply again in the near future. What possible logic is there for treating thresholds of one tax any differently than other taxes? All should rise in line with the retail price index.

   2. The notion that inheritance tax is levied on monies that have already been taxed is completeley spurious. The reason more people are affected by this tax is simply because of rising house prices. No tax is payable on the increase in value of one’s own home – therefore this money has NOT been previously taxed!

   3. OK then, lets abolish inheritance tax. But let’s extend capital gains tax to cover legacies. If you are lucky enough to inherit a sum of money why shouldn’t you pay tax on it? The problem here is that this would be far more expensive to collect. Inheritance tax, levied on the estate before distribution, is a very cost-effective tax to collect.

   Those campaigning for the abolition of IHT are acting purely out of self-interest. Not content with having made a killing out of rising house prices they are too greedy to want to pay a fair amount of tax. If they had their way then the expanding gap between rich and poor in our society would accelerate further. Down this route lies civil unrest!

   Cheers
   Brad

   Comment by Brad Naylor — 14 Mar 2007 on 1:45 pm | Link

5. Can I be the only person sick to the back teeth of these comfortably off middle class whingers moaning about inheritance tax?

   A few points;

   1. The idea that inheritance tax thresholds should rise in line with house prices is ridiculous. The steep rise in house prices over the last few years is a transient phase and in all probability they will fall sharply again in the near future. What possible logic is there for treating thresholds of one tax any differently than other taxes? All should rise in line with the retail price index.

   2. The notion that inheritance tax is levied on monies that have already been taxed is completeley spurious. The reason more people are affected by this tax is simply because of rising house prices. No tax is payable on the increase in value of one’s own home – therefore this money has NOT been previously taxed!

   3. OK then, lets abolish inheritance tax. But let’s extend capital gains tax to cover legacies. If you are lucky enough to inherit a sum of money why shouldn’t you pay tax on it? The problem here is that this would be far more expensive to collect. Inheritance tax, levied on the estate before distribution, is a very cost-effective tax to collect.

   Those campaigning for the abolition of IHT are acting purely out of self-interest. Not content with having made a killing out of rising house prices they are too greedy to want to pay a fair amount of tax. If they had their way then the expanding gap between rich and poor in our society would accelerate further. Down this route lies civil unrest!

   Cheers
   Brad

   Comment by Brad Naylor — 14 Mar 2007 on 1:46 pm | Link

6. Brad,
   Let’s put this in context. I assume you have friends or family that you occasionally buy christmas or birthday presents for? Or maybe somebody has given *you* something — bought you a pint, maybe?

   How would you feel if — every time someone bought you a beer — you had to hand over a pound to the government (as well as the tax, duty, and VAT) that’s already paid on it? Or if you gave someone a present worth, say \xA320 — paid for out of your taxed income — you were committing them to handing over another \xA38 in tax?

   Because that is what inheritance tax does. It’s a tax on gifts that are given by parents to their children.

   But it gets worse than that. My mum and dad were ordinary working folk: a schoolteacher and a carpenter. When they retired, they bought a 3-bedroom bungalow. Mum is now buried in the churchyard across the road.

   She left her share of the house to me — free of inheritance tax. But I couldn’t chuck Dad out of his home, could I? The result is that when Dad dies, I will end up paying inheritance tax on the whole house. The best guess at the moment is that if he lives another five years, it will come to about \xA3160,000.

   In effect, that means that I am paying the government \xA330,000 per year for Dad to stay in his own home — the home that he and mum bought and paid for out of their own hard-earned and over-taxed income.

   But you seem to think that you’re entitled to demand a slice of it. Why? What gives you the right to demand a share of the gift that my mum left to me and her grandchildren? I presume you wouldn’t have dreamed of mugging her when she was alive, so why do you think it’s OK to do so now?

   Comment by tim bartlett — 29 Mar 2007 on 5:31 pm | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.