Do we get issued with death dates so we know when the 7 years is?

This is obviously new to you.

There used to be a rule whereby cash gifts up to a certain amount each year to relatives etc would remain tax free if you died 7 years after the gifts. If you died within 7 years you're legally required to pay income tax.

The rule has changed recently but some of it I think may remain.

There is now a 14 year rule as well. Not sure of the details.

COYP

From The Times....

Attachment: IMG_20170519_021648.jpg (171.28Kb)

Many people work and save specifically to build a an inheritance for their children and grandchildren. No one in their right mind is going to save to enrich the taxman.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Many people do...of course they do. They look to first create advantage and then cement it for their family. It's the most natural thing for good hard working people to want to do.

But government is about representing everyone in a world with finite resources and it's not just representing the successful and those who benefit from them.....Doing that is what got us into the housing crises in the first place.

Like I say inheritance goes completely against meritocracy.

But the state should only get involved beyond a certain level.

Edited by Stirlingsays (19 May 2017 7.22am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Sure we can all point to problems with the state....But it's from a position of comfort where we have benefited from it.

You are protected by its army, fire, police and probably have benefited from school and health services at some point...it keeps criminals locked up....Pensions for god sake...Can you imagine what life would be without them?

You slag the state off but its achievements are considerable. Show me a country doing well without a considerable state.

The American state put a man on the moon.

The British state created a medical service free at the point of delivery. It looks after the elderly...to an extent.. at a time where so many families pretend they can't...when in truth they won't.

The profit motive can do great things but its limited in scope by its requirements.

Edited by Stirlingsays (19 May 2017 7.39am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

[quote=Stirlingsays;3170286

The British state created a medical service free at the point of delivery. It looks after the elderly...to an extent.. at a time where so many families pretend they can't...when in truth they won't.

This. It makes you laugh when you simplify it.

Offspring want the cash. Elderly want to give offspring the cash. Offspring don't want to look after offspring for the cash. Elderly and offspring expect taxpayers to pay for the care so they can spend the cash or give it to their offspring who also won't want to look after them.

Funny really.

I have relatives who didn't expect offspring or state to pay for their care. They saved up knowing that if the wife died first, the husband wouldn't cope on his own. Wife did die first. Daughter took her widowed father in for a number of years until a chain of events meant he went into care, paid for by their savings and a small contribution with government pension. It cost at least the gross average salary.

It's very Tory to expect people to be responsible for themselves, which I would like to see more. By that I mean showing some responsibility for themselves rather than being irresponsible, not solely responsible for yourself.

But then it's also a bit socialist as well, which makes me laugh that they don't like it. The socialist relatives of mine were prepared to put old age man in care as soon as was required, whatever the cost, not expecting any cash at the end. Charming.

The Asian and Mediterraneans in this country must think we're a heartless bunch of cvnts. They'd just do it. In fact in a lot of cases you can upsize so you barely see OAP and even one of you not work the cost of care is so expensive. You'd probably need to earn £45k gross to pay for a care home, although you can subtract the OAP's pension(s) off that cost.

Over £30k for care homes. £7.50 per hour for workers. Who are the mugs?

24/7 personal care would cost £125k. Maybe get care qualifications, charge your parent until they're skint,Cohen they go into a home. Or get your family friend to pretend they're the carer.

COYP

Or they're just boring hoarding b@stards.

Most houses cost over £100k and I don't know of any mortgage companies that let you release equity knowing you're going to make the payments with only that released equity.

You could scale down and go on many luxury cruises, and pay for lots of holidays for your offspring, but the government could legally have a hold on the value of your house apart from £100k. Evading that would be serious fraud.

They've probably gone beyond a reasonable level and if they kept it reasonable, much more than £100k, then it may not have created such an angry reaction.

COYP

Purple lower legs bigger than my thighs. Then they go back for seconds because there's still time before the visit to their GP or coach trip on channel 4.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (19 May 2017 8.59am)

COYP

Lifetime gifts are already included within the scope of inheritance tax.

If you had actually read what I'd written you'd see that I had suggested a de minimis tax free amount for EACH recipient. I would suggest that lifetime gifts could easily be brought within the scope of what I have suggested in a similar way to the current application. (I believe it's a current de minimis of £3k per year per recipient).

So if you give someone a "birthday present" of £5k now and die tomorrow that present would be included in the value of your estate and be within the scope of IHT. So you're point is facile as your example is already within the scope.