Debate not Gossip-Inheritance Tax

jkitleft Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:59:53 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

In a bid to get more issues discussed, and not factionalism or elections, I will be running a section called: 'Debate not Gossip'.

Inheritance Tax. Nicknamed the 'death tax', in order to scare the 98-99% of that public who don't pay it, in to considering it their worst nightmare in the US, and by the Tories, to convince Middle England that they all have to pay it, by putting politics before economics. It is a political football.

The Tories' solution, was not prudent. Raising the threshhold to £1,000,000 is not the reform needed. But a reform, I believe is needed. What do you believe is needed? Should we stick with the current rules, and thrsehholds, as is? Should we abolish it, like social democratic Sweden? Should we close the seven-year loophole? I would like to hear any suggestions... 





tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Debate not Gossip-Inheritance Tax | 7 comments (7 topical)

Re: Debate not Gossip-Inheritance Tax (#1)

by jkitleft on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:18:29 PM GMT

I would like to hear any reforms, that you think could improve the system.


Re: Debate not Gossip-Inheritance Tax (#2)

by jkitleft on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:00:01 PM GMT

Does anyone want to discuss policy, and not the politics of factionalism and elections, anyone? At all?


Re: Debate not Gossip-Inheritance Tax (#3)

by TonyH on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:49:08 PM GMT

Am I bovvered though? Face? Bovvered?

Tricky issue - people avoid IHT pretty handily. I think it's right that there be an IHT - wealth transferred is taxed, this should be no different.

But I don't like the idea that people's homes are taken away to meet this tax (although I think the taxman can help work out plans for its payment).

The threshold, even though this government has raised it several times, is not nearly high enough. Perhaps it should've gone up in line with a house-price index rather than inflation?

When Dennis Healy introduced it (actually its predecessor), it was designed for the very, very rich - now it cannot be argued that only the very, very rich pay.

I simply don't know how to fix it - perhaps taxing only the liquid assets of an estate or removing people's first homes from the taxable part of the estate would work but it'd come at a serious cost.


[ Parent ]

Re: Debate not Gossip-Inheritance Tax (#4)

by jkitleft on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:03:29 PM GMT

How about, for instance, if the taxes were divided between the issue. For instance: If £400,000 were left, to one recipient, they would be liable to tax. If there were 4 recipients, they would not be liable if my next proposal were enacted: taxing on the inheritance rather than the assets.


[ Parent ]

Re: Debate not Gossip-Inheritance Tax (#5)

by TonyH on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:25:12 AM GMT

I think there's already a provision for people to share allowances with Partners. Not four people - for the four people £100k is still a capital gain - so they should pay something.


[ Parent ]

Re: Debate not Gossip-Inheritance Tax (#6)

by jkitleft on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:19:07 PM GMT

Ok. I think they should probably start taxing the actual inheritence, rather than the assets of the estate though.


[ Parent ]

Re: Debate not Gossip-Inheritance Tax (#7)

by rwendland on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:34:17 AM GMT

Taxing each inheritance rather than the estate wouldn't work, it's just too easy to get around - create enough trusts, companies, unicorporated associations or accomplices (on 1% commission) to split the estate such that each is under the threshold.


[ Parent ]

Debate not Gossip-Inheritance Tax | 7 comments (7 topical)