h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You can also factor in whether inheriting large sums of money is actually any benefit to the kids in the longer run.

It doesn't tend to help their motivation in passing exams, getting jobs, and generally standing on their own two feet. In addition, it is also a means of parental control, which you may see as positive but I bet they don't.

My parents helped me till I was 18, afterwards I got my own loans/earned my own cash, and felt much freer for it. They may leave a house split three ways, , or it could all go on nice holidays for them(I hope) or as is increasing likely these days expensive residential/Alzheimer care. Nobody can be sure that this won't happen to them, so you might as well assume your kids will need to earn their own money.

sprout

Morning Doc

I would like to 'chip in' here ,and agree with Pedro.

I don't see why your kids DESERVE the fruits of your labours. it may turn out to be a word you regret using. ( that happens to me, and I have to apologise sometimes! )

When my dad died all I got was a pair of binoculars. I still have them after 30 years. I certainly didn't get any cash , and I seriously believe that it is better for your kids to learn to stand on their own feet.

Novo
²

As I mentioned earlier, the thing that's inconsistent for me is that the tax is based on the total estate, representing the departed, but the argument for the tax is based upon the people who receive the inheritance, as seen by the earlier calculations showing how its different depending on the number of beneficiaries.

The threshold should be based on the amount each person can inherit untaxed, not on the amount each person is allowed to pass-on.

Morning Pedro

"Why do your kids deserve your money"

OK. For the sake of the debate, lets assume for a minute that they do not. What happens then? Do I take the view that I should "Live for now" spend it, and not consider the children at all? Do we sell the house and blow the proceeds on a massive pub crawl round the world?
Tempting as it seems, perhaps I could just blow it all on a blonde a third of my age.........

Or do I give it to Battersea Dogs home, Oxfam or any number of other charities? If so, what makes them any more deserving - in fact, which charity would be the most "Deserving"?

It my sound stupid, but my family is my life. I get more pleasure playing with them in the garden, watching them wobble off solo for the first time on a bike and helping them bake cakes than any other pursuit.

I also know what it is to stand by yourself and have no assistance as I have been there and done that. So - why do they "Deserve" our inheritance? Simply, they bring me joy. I want to give them the "Leg Up"
that my parents wanted to give me but could never afford. I also cannot think of any other place that I would want the inheritance to go to.
Is that reason enough?

Yes for you but expecting the government to make decisions based just on whats good for you is unrealistic
Personally I've no complaint about you making sure that you pay as little inheritence tax as legally possible
I'd go so far to say that as a parent its your duty to do so just as its your duty as a citizen to make sure that all you do is avoid tax, not evade it

We don't have kids, by choice, so we'll make sure there's little left for the taxman always assuming of course we do not have to liquidate assets to fund health or residential care. Seems to me the state takes better care of the poor rather than the prudent/fortunate.

Of course parents will want to give their kids a leg up. Responsible parents have invested not just genes but money, love and time, in bringing them up. Surely they are a part of you, the future, your way of influencing how society will develop.

>>"The threshold should be based on the amount each person can inherit untaxed, not on the amount each person is allowed to pass-on."

Are you talking about individual inheritance thresholds unrelated to people's income tax, etc?
What kind of threshold should that be?

Is there any chance of setting a level which people would think of as really fair?

Hi Doc,

I think we're getting our wires crossed slightly. You've said that your first duty is to your kids, etc etc. I agree, and I'd agree with you and others that you'd be daft to pay any more tax than necessary. Just like you'd be nuts to pay 45% income tax.

From your own point of view, I agree entirely. But this isn't from your POV, it's about what policies the government should enforce to
a) raise necessary taxes
b) in a manner which is good for society as a whole

With inheritance tax, it seems to be more unpopular than it deserves () to be. You can leave £300k before the govt even takes a bite of your estate. At £400k, your kids pay 10%. You generally have to be very wealthy for it to a significant effect on your kids' inheritance. Unless you're absolutely loaded, your estate will be fairly intact when you pop your clogs.

All parents want to give their kids a leg up, but it's the government choice that society as a whole is harmed when wealth is concentrated too much. Do you have a problem with this (as a Tory cheerleader), or is it just the actual tax that pisses you off?

Good Afternoon Pedro

I will be right up front (as usual) and agree with you when you say that it is the Tax that p*sses me off. At the risk of thread drift, everywhere you look, you are taxed. Here are just a few that I found in seconds flat
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/garbagegate/item2/stealth.htm

Is it too much to ask that after being "Tax" assaulted all through your life that you and your family are left in peace when you die?

>>"Is it too much to ask that after being "Tax" assaulted all through your life that you and your family are left in peace when you die?"

Well, for a start, *you're* already dead.
If you want to torture yourself into an early grave by the thought that the taxman might take 100K off a 600K estate, be my guest.

Just don't try to portray it like some huge socialist assault on Middle England if in reality the issue is that you don't want the taxman to take a single penny of a large estate, despite all the taxes that apply to poor people.

Typo: 100K->120K

"Just don't try to portray it like some huge socialist assault on Middle England if in reality the issue is that you don't want the taxman to take a single penny of a large estate, despite all the taxes that apply to poor people."


What? I have never portrayed this as "some huge socialist assault on Middle England" Taxes apply to everyone regardless of the colour of the government of the day, or so I thought.

I am actually very even handed, I deeply dislike all politicians whatever their hue.........and before you all go galloping off thinking I am some rich bloke with estates all over the land, I am not. Jo average me, three bed semi, commute to work, etc, etc

Doesnt change the fact that we (WE I said) are taxed to oblivion.

"Doesnt change the fact that we (WE I said) are taxed to oblivion."

You present yourself as reasonable, even-handed etc and then use the preposterously hyperbolic phrase "taxed to oblivion". We are manifestly no such thing - the taxman doesn't even get a majority of our pay/savings let alone almost all of it. There's certainly a debate about how much we should be taxed but lets not disappear into the realms of crankery.

People have been saying that since taxes were first invented. The tax burden is higher than it was a few years ago, lower than it was a few years before that. It may or may not be too high but it isn't at unprecedented levels.

That depends upon whether you're talking about direct or in-direct taxation.

Tax on luxury goods - fair enough - tax on neccessities ?

Then there's the level of tax on petrol - and motoring in general.

University fees - a tax on education.

Unregulated finance industry a tax on the most needy citizens.

"People have been saying that since taxes were first invented. The tax burden is higher than it was a few years ago, lower than it was a few years before that. It may or may not be too high but it isn't at unprecedented levels."

It certainly isn't. Compare with the top rate of income tax by the last "old" Labour government in 1979. I think even some socialists thought it was taking the pi$$.

"Tax on luxury goods - fair enough - tax on neccessities ?"

Define necessity. I've always wondered why women's sanitary products are classed as a "luxury"...

"Then there's the level of tax on petrol - and motoring in general."

Entirely defensible on environmental grounds if nothing else. You tax what people are prepared to pay tax on to adjust demand.

"University fees - a tax on education."

Um... no. University GRANTS were a tax on being dumb - everybody financed them, very few people got to take advantage of them.

University fees, on the other hand, are not a tax at all - they're a fee. Clue's in the name. They're no more a tax than the cost of my paragliding lessons was a tax - I choose to learn to paraglide, I pay someone to teach me. I choose to learn to be a lawyer, I pay someone to teach me. No difference. Nobody has a right to a further education.

"Unregulated finance industry a tax on the most needy citizens."

Only the stupid ones. The lottery is a tax on poor math skills, and hugely successful and popular one it is too.

SoRB

Well you've given a good example there yourself, but clothing would be another.

Were the tax on petrol used for enviromental puposes I'd agree - if it was used to finance public transport, I'd agree - its not its just bunged into the pot to be spent with the rest.

No calling it a fee may persuade people its not a tax, but it is - you and I are not in the starting out in our careers stage - if you were you would find out that a degree now is no longer a requirement for the professions, it's a requirement for anything above a minimum wage job. The education system has been dumbed down so far that anything less than an A level is disregarded. (OK exageration, but certainly academic qualifications are expected for very ordinary jobs.)

For a long time I held your views on the less gifted in society, but now I feel that all (non-criminal) members of society should be entitled to the benefits of society, and that includes the right not to be ripped off or taken advantage of.

The lottery - Government sponsered tax on stupidity.

>>"Doesnt change the fact that we (WE I said) are taxed to oblivion."

Most of 'us' aren't currently likely to get hit by inheritance tax, and of those that are, many of 'us' are only going to be marginally hit. It's unlikely to force anyone to starvation.

Ohhhhh look! Labour have stolen from the Tories/Lib Dems and have put the threshold to £600,000!

Well done, a good start.