Margaret Thatcher Tax Snatcher?

[Soulman]

Why do you love the sentiment?More money for the Government to waste or what.Probably just the politics of envy that seems to thrive on NSC.
By the way,I may be wrong but hasn't Australia scrapped IHT?

I would like to see the fat cats who get the big bonuses and others with their snouts in the trough curbed. The people that rely on the worker and taxpayer to fund their existence (that does not include the genuinely disabled, pensioner, and genuine unemployed etc) curbed.
Yes there is a lot of envy, but it is the people that are contributing to the coffers of many of those that envy isn't it.

 

[BadFish]

Why do you love the sentiment?More money for the Government to waste or what.Probably just the politics of envy that seems to thrive on NSC.
By the way,I may be wrong but hasn't Australia scrapped IHT?

I like the sentiment of looking after those in our society that need looking after. Helping those that need help and generally spreading the wealth a little more fairly.

 

[BLOCK F]

I would like to see the fat cats who get the big bonuses and others with their snouts in the trough curbed. The people that rely on the worker and taxpayer to fund their existence (that does not include the genuinely disabled, pensioner, and genuine unemployed etc) curbed.
Yes there is a lot of envy, but it is the people that are contributing to the coffers of many of those that envy isn't it.

Sorry Soulman,you've lost me .

 

[Seagull73]

Firstly it's not £295k profit is it - you need to deduct inflation out of it. Even then, whatever profit there is isn't taxed if you decide to sell up while you're alive and then spend it. Yet the government will tax it if you die thanks to you working hard and being sensible. Sends out completely the wrong message.

100000000000000000000000000000000% this

 

[soistes]

Blimey Soistes,you must trust your kids less than the Government of the day!
Less taxation is what we need in this country ,not more!

Depends on the taxation -- Inheritance tax is, in many ways, a good tax. Even some right wing economists agree with this. See
Listen to Adam Smith: inheritance tax is good The Spectator

 

[BLOCK F]

Depends on the taxation -- Inheritance tax is, in many ways, a good tax. Even some right wing economists agree with this. See
Listen to Adam Smith: inheritance tax is good The Spectator

Tried to wade through the article,but it was so boring I almost lost the will to live.
For the same reason,I usually fail to complete reading the author's articles in the Sunday Times!

 

[Cheshire Cat]

My assets do not belong to the state, they belong to me, and I reserve the right to minimise my obligations to the state in any legitimate way I can.

Otherwise we end up like Cyprus where any bank account becomes potentially open to theft by the state and for the state.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

My assets do not belong to the state, they belong to me, and I reserve the right to minimise my obligations to the state in any legitimate way I can.

Otherwise we end up like Cyprus where any bank account becomes potentially open to theft by the state and for the state.

This.

 

[Soulman]

My assets do not belong to the state, they belong to me, and I reserve the right to minimise my obligations to the state in any legitimate way I can.

Otherwise we end up like Cyprus where any bank account becomes potentially open to theft by the state and for the state.

This.

 

[osgood]

This.

im willing to wager a shilling that the Bliars accounts has more than double the worth of margarets

wanna bet ?

 

[drew]

My assets do not belong to the state, they belong to me, and I reserve the right to minimise my obligations to the state in any legitimate way I can.

Otherwise we end up like Cyprus where any bank account becomes potentially open to theft by the state and for the state.

Alternatively, when the government can't afford to run essential services because a) they don't collect enough taxes or b) they can't get a bailout because the international markets won't lend because they see your citizens can't be arsed to contribute!

The other point is that when you die, they are not your asssets any longer!!!!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

The other point is that when you die, they are not your asssets any longer!!!!

But they're not the governments assets either - they are the assets of whom I choose - not who the taxman decides.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Alternatively, when the government can't afford to run essential services because a) they don't collect enough taxes or b) they can't get a bailout because the international markets won't lend because they see your citizens can't be arsed to contribute!

Scrap Trident and we'd easily save the £3bn raised by IHT.

 

[Soulman]

But they're not the governments assets either - they are the assets of whom I choose - not who the taxman decides.

Yep.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Alternatively, when the government can't afford to run essential services because a) they don't collect enough taxes or b) they can't get a bailout because the international markets won't lend because they see your citizens can't be arsed to contribute!

The other point is that when you die, they are not your asssets any longer!!!!

Your first point is not relevant as that is a different argument. It is the duty of the state to arrange its revenue raising to ensure it raises sufficient revenues to run essential services. It is not my problem if it fails to do so - that is the problem of the state, and it should put its affairs in order to achieve this.

Second point - they are my assets and I decide what happens to them after I die. If I decide I want the state to have them, it can have them. If not, not.

PS. Having experienced how the state manages some those assets bequeathed to it, I wouldn't trust it with a penny.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

But they're not the governments assets either - they are the assets of whom I choose - not who the taxman decides.

Am I right in saying that you can give your house to your children, providing that you don't die within 7 years, then they're not liable for IHT?

 

[Soulman]

Am I right in saying that you can give your house to your children, providing that you don't die within 7 years, then they're not liable for IHT?

I believe that is still the case at the moment. If you live in Scotland, then the property would not be used for care costs whoever owned it.....but that's a different matter. That applies to a care home costs....not sure re IHT

 

[pauli cee]

so this thread has nothing to do with thatchers snatch at all

 

[drew]

Your first point is not relevant as that is a different argument. It is the duty of the state to arrange its revenue raising to ensure it raises sufficient revenues to run essential services. It is not my problem if it fails to do so - that is the problem of the state, and it should put its affairs in order to achieve this.

Second point - they are my assets and I decide what happens to them after I die. If I decide I want the state to have them, it can have them. If not, not.

PS. Having experienced how the state manages some those assets bequeathed to it, I wouldn't trust it with a penny.

Of course it's relevant, IHT forms part of the governments fiscal policy. The state is arranging its revenue to try and ensure sufficient funding for its policies and that includes IHT, CGT, VAT etc etc. You could abolish all forms of taxation except for Income Tax and we'd probably all be paying about 50% or there abouts. Your second point is not factual. The government do not take your assets, they just just take 40% of the financial value above whatever the threshold is at the time of your death.

As to you final point, what examples are you citing in respect of assets bequeathed to it?

 

[BadFish]

Your first point is not relevant as that is a different argument. It is the duty of the state to arrange its revenue raising to ensure it raises sufficient revenues to run essential services. It is not my problem if it fails to do so - that is the problem of the state, and it should put its affairs in order to achieve this.

Second point - they are my assets and I decide what happens to them after I die. If I decide I want the state to have them, it can have them. If not, not.

PS. Having experienced how the state manages some those assets bequeathed to it, I wouldn't trust it with a penny.

It is the duty of the government to arrange its revenue raising. It is a shame that so many governments feel the need to organise this in such a way that it is easy for those with means and influence to avoid paying their fair share.

People stated they will do everything they can to pay less tax. It is just a shame more people don't measure this in morality instead of legality.