Inheritance Tax

[Deleted member 121]

Should the number of beneficiaries not be taken into consideration too?, in your case the spoils are being divided two ways, my poor kids will have a six way split.

Save them the bother and bury it like an Anglo-Saxon warrior... Let Tony Robinson dig it up in a thousand years or so on Time Team - The Reincarnated.

 

[Deleted member 28]

As I say though, many of the very rich aren't paying inheritance tax anyway due to trusts etc. It'll be the folk who aren't aware who will be hit most.

Can't 'poor' people form a trust as well?

A pal at work did exactly this with his parents house some years ago when his mum took ill, further down the line his father got dementia and ended up in a home.

The house was protected and when he died the proceeds were split 3 ways between the kids.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Should the number of beneficiaries not be taken into consideration too?, in your case the spoils are being divided two ways, my poor kids will have a six way split.

Of course, it's not his fault he lives somewhere expensive is it.

Poor thing.

 

[Rusty Nails]

If you actually read the post without looking for nits to pick you would see that there is nothing incompatible in those two statements.

She never had much money, you know…that stuff that you buy things with, but was living in a high worth house, which she has now sold to give her some more money to spend on stuff. Problem solved, everyone is quids in.

No indication she did it to avoid inheritance tax.

 

[theclaud]

If you actually read the post without looking for nits to pick you would see that there is nothing incompatible in those two statements.

She never had much money, you know…that stuff that you buy things with, but was living in a high worth house, which she has now sold to give her some more money to spend on stuff. Problem solved, everyone is quids in.

No indication she did it to avoid inheritance tax.

I'm not 'looking for nits to pick' - I'm merely perpetually astonished at the inability of people with considerable wealth to exhibit any self-awareness about it. If I've got a house worth £600K (meaning, in this context, that a buyer will part with that amount for it), then I've got £600K, as Aurora has subsequently acknowledged when she says her friend sold the house 'to free up some cash'.

 

[icowden]

Should the number of beneficiaries not be taken into consideration too?,

No. It's irrelevant whether there are 2 or 20. If they have inherited in the house it is theirs to dispose of, as opposed to part belonging to the Government.

 

[Ian H]

If you actually read the post without looking for nits to pick you would see that there is nothing incompatible in those two statements.

She never had much money, you know…that stuff that you buy things with, but was living in a high worth house, which she has now sold to give her some more money to spend on stuff. Problem solved, everyone is quids in.

No indication she did it to avoid inheritance tax.

Money can refer to realisable assets, unless you're nitpicking.

 

[icowden]

I'm not 'looking for nits to pick' - I'm merely perpetually astonished at the inability of people with considerable wealth to exhibit any self-awareness about it.

It's not wealth if you cannot spend it. If it is your home and you live in it, it doesn't matter whether it is worth £1 or £1 million.

 

[Mr Celine]

It's not wealth if you cannot spend it. If it is your home and you live in it, it doesn't matter whether it is worth £1 or £1 million.

And if you die it is no longer your home, you cannot spent it and you don't live in it. It therefore doesn't matter whether it is worth £1 or £1 million.

 

[icowden]

And if you die it is no longer your home, you cannot spent it and you don't live in it. It therefore doesn't matter whether it is worth £1 or £1 million.

No, but my children might. It matters to them that they have a home.

 

[Ian H]

It's not wealth if you cannot spend it. If it is your home and you live in it, it doesn't matter whether it is worth £1 or £1 million.

You can perhaps sell your house and buy something smaller, as in the case quoted.

 

[Mr Celine]

It's very hard to get a mortgage when you are still at school or university. And to flip it over, why is it fair that someone living in Norfolk gets to keep their large 5 bedroom detached house, but someone in Surrey must be forced to sell their 3 bedroom semi?

That doesn't seem fair to me.

So why not just increase inheritance tax to 100% for everyone? That way everyone is 'forced' to sell the house they never paid for in the first place.

 

[matticus]

No, but my children might. It matters to them that they have a home.

Then there is a strong argument that they should buy/rent/build one. Does the world owe them a free house, eh??

 

[newfhouse]

It's not wealth if you cannot spend it.

Nonsense. If I own property “worth” over half a million pounds I can either sell it for cash or borrow using it as collateral. That makes me wealthy.

In the real world selling or pawning possessions to make ends meet is a sometimes unfortunate part of daily life.

 

[BoldonLad]

No. It's irrelevant whether there are 2 or 20. If they have inherited in the house it is theirs to dispose of, as opposed to part belonging to the Government.

How can it be "irrelevant", if it is a tax on "wealth".

If (say) two people jointly inherit a £600K house, they get £300K each, if six people jointly inherit a £600K house, they get £100K each. So, the two people are more "wealthy", and, in the interests of "fairness" should be taxed more.