ChatterBank1 min ago
O K - Im Putting This Out There.........
85 Answers
I'm not backing it I'm not saying it's a good idea. All I'm doing is trying to find out from you what the issues are.
100% inheritance tax......no allowance.....when someone dies the government gets the lot.... discuss
100% inheritance tax......no allowance.....when someone dies the government gets the lot.... discuss
Answers
Pixie, I do not think you can assimilate leaving a Will of YOUR possessions to whomsoever you decide with something like FGM. It is comparing apples with pears. In this country testamentary freedom is a law that has been jealously protected by the Courts for centuries - despite the fact that the Wills Act was made in 1837, it has been updated and our legislature...
17:49 Thu 04th Nov 2021
It isn't about you personally, naomi. You may well have views and morals. This is about laws- including those who don't.
Would you agree, or not, that even if your parent was a billionaire,it might actually be healthy and beneficial, for you to work....? Give some of that money to those who really need it instead?
Would you agree, or not, that even if your parent was a billionaire,it might actually be healthy and beneficial, for you to work....? Give some of that money to those who really need it instead?
Pixie, I do not think you can assimilate leaving a Will of YOUR possessions to whomsoever you decide with something like FGM. It is comparing apples with pears. In this country testamentary freedom is a law that has been jealously protected by the Courts for centuries - despite the fact that the Wills Act was made in 1837, it has been updated and our legislature has moved with the times. It is not mere "tradition".
Frankly, I'd be a bit narked if, by her will, my mother wanted me to have a particular piece of jewellery to remember her by and HMRC said "nope, we are melting it down for scrap cos it's ours now".
Taxation is one thing; the state taking complete control over testamentary freedom is quite another. I do not mind if the rate of IHT is increased; there are sufficient exemptions available to ensure that most family businesses and homes remain within the family.
However, if we are working on the basis of 100% of what you own goes to the government, I think it's a terrible idea. It will not affect the really rich, since most of their stuff is already tied up in complex family trusts. It will make the divide wider. The working man who has saved hard to buy his own home to pay for his care fees and then pass the remainder to his children will still lose out and more so. The hugely wealthy will just use offshore trusts. This would harm the lower and middle classes rather than actually tax those who can afford it.
Frankly, I'd be a bit narked if, by her will, my mother wanted me to have a particular piece of jewellery to remember her by and HMRC said "nope, we are melting it down for scrap cos it's ours now".
Taxation is one thing; the state taking complete control over testamentary freedom is quite another. I do not mind if the rate of IHT is increased; there are sufficient exemptions available to ensure that most family businesses and homes remain within the family.
However, if we are working on the basis of 100% of what you own goes to the government, I think it's a terrible idea. It will not affect the really rich, since most of their stuff is already tied up in complex family trusts. It will make the divide wider. The working man who has saved hard to buy his own home to pay for his care fees and then pass the remainder to his children will still lose out and more so. The hugely wealthy will just use offshore trusts. This would harm the lower and middle classes rather than actually tax those who can afford it.
The consequence of the idea would be that an increasingly greater proportion of the nation's wealth would be transferred to the government. Even if they could be trusted to spend it wisely (which is not quite a certainty!) it would mean that eventually there would be a huge reduction in personal wealth.
In order for the economy to function properly when people have less of their own money to spend, the government will end up providing many of the goods and services that they would otherwise buy. So if you trust the government to buy your dinner for you, it might be a good idea. Personally I wouldn't trust them to run a bath.
In order for the economy to function properly when people have less of their own money to spend, the government will end up providing many of the goods and services that they would otherwise buy. So if you trust the government to buy your dinner for you, it might be a good idea. Personally I wouldn't trust them to run a bath.
\\It would certainly encourage spending rather than saving which would be good for the economy.//
Well yes and no IMO. It depends on where we'er up to in the economic cycle, it could just lead to inflation, and sometime's the goverment needs us to save in the form of say bonds to fund public spending or repay goverment debt.
But we agree that the rich can easily get round it as they already do now but would try even harder, so its going to hit the less welloff more
Well yes and no IMO. It depends on where we'er up to in the economic cycle, it could just lead to inflation, and sometime's the goverment needs us to save in the form of say bonds to fund public spending or repay goverment debt.
But we agree that the rich can easily get round it as they already do now but would try even harder, so its going to hit the less welloff more
Of course. And they well deserve it themselves. But-quite literally, a few people being richer equals a few being poorer. Fair enough.
And naomi, you may well be a billionaire with morals, as far as I know. But, it isn't personal.... there is clearly still inequity.
Inequality, of course, but for some to more than they could ever spend, and some to not have a roof... we clearly have a general issue with compassion, common sense and morals.
And naomi, you may well be a billionaire with morals, as far as I know. But, it isn't personal.... there is clearly still inequity.
Inequality, of course, but for some to more than they could ever spend, and some to not have a roof... we clearly have a general issue with compassion, common sense and morals.
If all the money that you left after dying went to the Government----
there would be no incentive to save ,buy property or even to work. People would rent houses ,spend all their money and probably give up work in order to claim benefits. School age children would not have anything to aim for .
Society as we know it now would collapse.
there would be no incentive to save ,buy property or even to work. People would rent houses ,spend all their money and probably give up work in order to claim benefits. School age children would not have anything to aim for .
Society as we know it now would collapse.
Latest Posts
Other Sports3 mins ago
Is Elon Musk An "Absolute Hero...
News6 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
