You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Inheritance Tax
April 28 2024 5.52pm

Inheritance Tax

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

 

View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 16 Jul 23 9.36pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by m/k mick

I should have been clearer, it is not taxed, the point was about being taxed twice on assets or savings

No I got your point I was just letting others know.

You have to sign an additional form with your pension provider "your wishes" it's like a second will. If you don't and your actual will is complicated then a court might not follow your wishes regarding your pension.

I didn't know this until recently.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View m/k mick's Profile m/k mick Flag milton keynes 16 Jul 23 10.00pm Send a Private Message to m/k mick Add m/k mick as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

No I got your point I was just letting others know.

You have to sign an additional form with your pension provider "your wishes" it's like a second will. If you don't and your actual will is complicated then a court might not follow your wishes regarding your pension.

I didn't know this until recently.

On a mute point, if you are in a company scheme, it is the trustees of that fund who legally decide your beneficiary, but they obviously comply in almost all cases with your wishes, a judge would not have primacy over the trustees, I have no idea about Personal pension plans rules

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 17 Jul 23 8.27am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines

I think the reasoning is that the £7 billion would be spent in the economy by those who inherited it, rather than it being fed into the Government's tax intake, where it gets lost on various unnecessary schemes. I was in a branch of a local bank yesterday and overheard a bloke behind me talking to a staff member. He needed to transfer over £400kin tax to HMRC due to an inheritance tax bill. Now I appreciate that means he probably still had over £600k to play around with but an extra £400k in the economy wouldn't be a bad thing. Basically the public would be better at spending the money rather than the government,

The problem with this theory is that the £7 billion would not necessarily be spent in our economy. Lots of it would find its way offshore, and not play any role in developing the UK.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Forest Hillbilly's Profile Forest Hillbilly Flag in a hidey-hole 17 Jul 23 8.48am Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly Add Forest Hillbilly as a friend

There are many existing "swerves" to avoid paying inheritance tax. This is the Government, perhaps admitting it is getting too tricky to catch people out, and perchance accountants are wising-up about how to lessen people's tax obligations.
And besides, with recent record numbers of home repossessions, and people having to sell their property to afford late-life care, then that particular income stream for the Government is not in the best of health.
If you think you're going to be liable for paying inheritance tax, you need to see a (better) accountant.

Edited by Forest Hillbilly (17 Jul 2023 8.51am)

 


"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Flag 17 Jul 23 8.53am Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The problem with this theory is that the £7 billion would not necessarily be spent in our economy. Lots of it would find its way offshore, and not play any role in developing the UK.

There is no reason to believe that that is case. Also the implication that the government would spend £7 billions to our advantage is hilariously optimistic.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag The garden of England 17 Jul 23 8.54am Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The problem with this theory is that the £7 billion would not necessarily be spent in our economy. Lots of it would find its way offshore, and not play any role in developing the UK.

The thing is though if you could gift any amount to your family or friends then the housing issue would get better. The environment would benefit as there would be money swishing around for cars and greener house upgrades. Spending would go up in the shops and tax take on it would probably garner at least 50% back. So it would probably only be a negative 3 billion or so. Going forwards it would likely get positive over time as not many would send a gift overseas in reality and even in a bank account hmg makes money. Give me the keys to 11 as I’ve sorted it

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 17 Jul 23 3.45pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by m/k mick

Can you explain how assets such as a home, where it’s value has risen many times over has already been taxed, secondly the other main asset left after death is pension fund, contributions which were tax free, savings held in ISAs which have grown from re investment, tax free, so where is this taxed twice ?.

You had to pay for that house with a mortgage, which was paid for by wages. Wages that were taxed.
The house cost you many times its actual value in the first place.

Savings were made using earned money that was taxed.

Which part is hard to understand?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View JRW2's Profile JRW2 Flag Dulwich 17 Jul 23 3.48pm Send a Private Message to JRW2 Add JRW2 as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

Annual exemption
You can give away a total of £3,000 worth of gifts each tax year without them being added to the value of your estate. This is known as your ‘annual exemption’.

You can give as many gifts of up to £250 per person as you want each tax year, as long as you have not used another allowance on the same person.

If you make regular payments
You can make regular payments to another person, for example to help with their living costs. There’s no limit to how much you can give tax free, as long as:

you can afford the payments after meeting your usual living costs
you pay from your regular monthly income

For example, you can give your child a regular payment of £60 a month (a total of £720 a year) as well as using your annual exemption of £3,000 in the same tax year.

I don't know whether I understand this fully.

Looking at the 2 first paragraphs of the above edited version of cryrst's post, are "gifts" and "exemptions" two different things. Could someone, for example, make "gifts" of £250 a year to 10 people and still have his £3000 "exemption" available to give away as he saw fit?

Then it seems that someone can in addition to the above make "regular payments" to another person. Does that mean only one person or any number? And is £720 a year a limit or just an example?

No wonder Tolly's, the accountant's bible, runs to over 1000 pages. I think one of the Treasury's main aims must be to make tax law incomprehensible. Why not get rid of these footling allowances and the conditions and exclusions that surround them and just have one simple allowance? Or, preferably, get rid of the whole thing!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 17 Jul 23 4.30pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

The thing is though if you could gift any amount to your family or friends then the housing issue would get better. The environment would benefit as there would be money swishing around for cars and greener house upgrades. Spending would go up in the shops and tax take on it would probably garner at least 50% back. So it would probably only be a negative 3 billion or so. Going forwards it would likely get positive over time as not many would send a gift overseas in reality and even in a bank account hmg makes money. Give me the keys to 11 as I’ve sorted it

It’s not the gifts going overseas that would make a difference. They would be minimal. It’s where the investment would end up.

Maybe your suggestion that it could be gifted to relatives, on the condition it was invested only in higher risk UK start up funds managed by government controlled schemes, would work. The government appears keen to direct pension fund investment in that direction.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 17 Jul 23 4.34pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

You had to pay for that house with a mortgage, which was paid for by wages. Wages that were taxed.
The house cost you many times its actual value in the first place.

Savings were made using earned money that was taxed.

Which part is hard to understand?

I suspect house price inflation has far exceeded the costs of mortgages even allowing for the interest payments.

I am sure someone can do the calculations.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View m/k mick's Profile m/k mick Flag milton keynes 17 Jul 23 4.53pm Send a Private Message to m/k mick Add m/k mick as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

You had to pay for that house with a mortgage, which was paid for by wages. Wages that were taxed.
The house cost you many times its actual value in the first place.

Savings were made using earned money that was taxed.

Which part is hard to understand?

Some logic that, you have not addressed the increase in value, but I think it’s best to leave it at that, have a lie down

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag The garden of England 17 Jul 23 5.11pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It’s not the gifts going overseas that would make a difference. They would be minimal. It’s where the investment would end up.

Maybe your suggestion that it could be gifted to relatives, on the condition it was invested only in higher risk UK start up funds managed by government controlled schemes, would work. The government appears keen to direct pension fund investment in that direction.

Please read it as literally as it’s written. Any amount to anyone. If you have offshore banking you probably don’t need gifts anyway. Give it to anyone 90% would spend it. That is taxed so hmg gets part of it back. Then more is gifted, more is spent and more is taxed. In the bigger picture of GDP of 2 trillion it’s a snip tbh.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Inheritance Tax