D.W
|
The only way it can be justified is if they raise the threshold to establish what is was meant to do in the first place and that's stop someone owning half of Britain through the passing on of assets over generations.
So I guess the more logical thing would only be to tax people if they own over a certain % of assets in one town, area, region etc. This would eliminate the ordinary person out of the equation and only penalise those who look to monopolies, which is after all, was what this "stealth tax" was allegedly set up to do.
The sad thing though is when the government loses one revenue stream another needs to be opened to compensate for it. It's just means the government will have to find another way to con us after inheritance tax is raised. |
|
ian4u1962
|
because the government are thieves and the dead can't object so spend it before you die so they dont get it |
|
Scouse
|
There was a point in death duities when they were first introduced. A few families owned all oe most of the land. death duties helped to redistibute it.
Now it is a tax on even quite a humble home and serves only to irritate in ats present form. |
|
Ò‰FuzzyÒ‰ - Ò‰No-NosedÒ‰ - Ò‰ChimpÒ‰
|
Death and taxes, you can't escape either. It is an evil tax. The people who left the money have already had it taxed, so why should it get taxed again? Just shows you how sick and desperate politicians are. |
|
STEVE T
|
It is currently seen as an unfair tax because so many "ordinary" people are now having to pay it. Basically we pay tax on what we earn, pay tax (VAT) if we spend any of what's left after income tax and pay IHT on anything we own (above the £300k threshold) when we die!
The original idea was to tax people who were given wealth for nothing (eg children of the very rich getting an inheritance) while the rest of us (the working classes) had to pay income tax on money we worked for. As this was a little unfair the government taxed the non-workers too.
But now many "working class" people are being caught up due to increases in property values - which is rather unfair! |
|
waggy_33
 |
It is either this or an income tax at death. I prefer the inheritance tax because less than 1% of the people who die each year pay it. The rest of us get off scott free. |
|
Jonathan
|
It's an out-dated tax, like many other taxes we have today, but the government has come to rely on them to pay their fat wages and retirement funds. |
|
Davy B
|
The difficulty in the UK is that we do not pay nearly enough tax and that is why health service and so on does not work effectively.
Of course no one LIKES paying tax but it is one of the things that we "all" have to do in a civilised society. It does not necessarily benefit the taxpayer directly but contributes to the good of all.
The living complain about tax but it is one thing that the dead can not do! |
|
Duffer
 |
It was introduced by William Pitt the younger in an effort to re-distribute wealth. I would be in favour of Income tax being abolished, and inheritance tax being 100%. That would mean everybody had to start on a level playing field! |
|
BRIAN P
|
Inheritance tax is not taxing the dead. It is people that inherit the unearned income that are being taxed. It would be better for society as a whole for unearned income to be taxed rather than earned income. |
|
KIngdiana Jones
|
Of course its wrong, its all about making money out of misery I wish I could say something else but I've narrowed it down to a nutshell. |
|
Onestep downfrom God
|
My brother earned £250,000 each year and paid all the income tax and NIC due. What was left was his, wasn't it. After all HMRC had taken their cut.
Then he died and left £650,000 in cash and they taxed it again. This is immoral. |
|
| |
|
Homepage 
Financial
Forum 
Taxes 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
