If youre half as good a parent as you probably think you are, you’ll have educated your children well enough so they can make their own fortunes. They don’t need yours.
I plan to educate my children and help them as much as possible financially. I don't see these as mutually exclusive. Thanks for the parenting advice.
Or, at the very least spend it whilst you’re alive so you do benefit the economy.
No, as lucrative as the state pension is, I'm going to save for my retirement and then spend it.
You may think you’re benefiting the economy, but having heaps of cash locked up in assets and savings does bugger all for it. Try a spot of altruism and donate it to charity instead.
All my assets are in shares of businesses that are out there employing people and creating revenue. I'm saving for my retirement and children’s future but instead I should just give it to charity? Easier to say about someone else's cash.
Trust me honey
Probably not.
Or you could just let them be adults and pay their own bills
Or you could set them up an incredible way with a private education, house and no student debt, giving them a spectacular opportunity I didn't have. Why wouldn't one want that for their children, or to stay on point, if you've worked and saved for that why should it be taken away after you've already been taxed.
Moot point anyway personally as I pay zero tax anyhoo, but that was a major reason behind leaving the UK.
I really struggle to understand the hostility towards IHT in particular. Dead people don't need money. The beneficiaries are usually well-set 50-somethings who don't need it either. They already get £650,000 tax-free, isn't that enough?
If you want to give your kids something, do it when they are young enough to need it, like school-leaving/university age.
Woosh, that is the sound of my point flying right over your head.
Quite the contrary actually, but carry on. I'm from a working class family and parents lived pay-cheque to pay-cheque. I'm now in my mid 30s on a 6-figure salary. Total amount of financial help directly from my parents beyond modest birthday / Christmas presents is as follows:
£3000 for a replacement car when I was 23 and my £900 banger blew its engine and they didn't want me in another death trap. Supposed to be a loan but long ago written down.
£4000 loan when we moved countries eight years ago to help cash-flow, repaid in two months.
Aside from that, we've (wife + I) inherited £10k each from deceased grandparents on either side. Oh, and collectively our parents forced us to let them pay for some of our wedding when we said we weren't going to have a sit-down meal and they protested.
So, enjoy your money, and if your offspring earn it they'll make their own. And if they don't, you won't be doing them any favours by giving them a short-term sugar hit.
Or you could set them up an incredible way with a private education, house and no student debt, giving them a spectacular opportunity I didn’t have.
Wonderful...
I really struggle to understand the hostility towards IHT in particular. Dead people don’t need money. The beneficiaries are usually well-set 50-somethings who don’t need it either.
Simple answer is people are greedy and selfish. People with money always seem to need even more money,
See post above from person who moved out of UK primarily so they didn't have to pay for any parts of the society they were raised in.
100% inheritance tax ?
There's already nothing to stop anyone on this thread leaving all of their assets to the State if they really want to.
How would me leaving all my assets to the govt address the problem of generational inherited inequality or raise significant tax revenue for the good of the nation?
100% inheritance tax ?
There’s already nothing to stop anyone on this thread leaving all of their assets to the State if they really want to.
Doesn't address the problem of lack of social / financial mobility unless everyone does it.
I think inheritance should just be treated as income and taxed accordingly, so basically 40/45% for most of it.
How would me leaving all my assets to the govt address the problem of generational inherited inequality or raise significant tax revenue for the good of the nation?
Well, every little helps. And after all:
Dead people don’t need money
Or is it only other peoples' money you're happy to give away?
Wonderful…
Yes, every privately educated child is a member of the Bullingdon Club, especially at primary school. Also, where did it get them anyway!?
Also, where did it get them anyway!?
Being accused of sexual relations with a pig's head, and having the notoriety of being so situationally unaware you accidentally destroy the country when trying to settle a petty argument in your own political party. Still, he's rich, I suppose :rolls:
Quite the contrary actually, but carry on.
No exactly, as illustrated by the waffle you made after.
No exactly, as illustrated by the waffle you made after.
No, really it’s you. I fully understand what you’re saying, I just fundamentally disagree with it. The waffle illustrated why.
You seem not to get this, but then those who think that taxes are a game to be dodged and that wealth is a right, rather than something that is earned often have trouble with simple comprehension.
Utter rot, I am not proposing dodging taxes. I am proposing that instead of keeping money doing nothing for 40 years just to then pay IHT on, one should use it to help ones nearest and dearest as they go, and then die with nothing left.Keeping the money circulating is better for the economy and more likely to lead to higher HMRC receipts anyway. It seems you think people should keep their money under the mattress just so they can meet your pious moral requirement to pay loads of IHT when they die?
This below is the bit where you have had a total comprehension failure. They won't be getting a sugar hit, they won't have any extra money to spend than what they earn, its just that their actual earnings will 100% be invested, and I will pay their daily running costs, and I am allowed to as per HMRC rules. Which luckily means I can do what I propose and you can take your moral outrage and smoke it.
So, enjoy your money, and if your offspring earn it they’ll make their own. And if they don’t, you won’t be doing them any favours by giving them a short-term sugar hit.
Utter rot, I am not proposing dodging taxes. I am proposing that instead of keeping money doing nothing for 40 years just to then pay IHT on, one should use it to help ones nearest and dearest as they go, and then die with nothing left.Keeping the money circulating is better for the economy and more likely to lead to higher HMRC receipts anyway. It seems you think people should keep their money under the mattress just so they can meet your pious moral requirement to pay loads of IHT when they die?
I'd simply suggesting you spend it yourself to achieve those ends, and your offspring if you've brought them up well will make their own luck. What is it you're actually teaching them by your methods? That financial decisions have no consequences because mummy and daddy will pay for everything? What drivers do they have to become more skilled and aspire to better jobs if everything is paid for in the immediate term by the bank of mum & dad?
And back to that comprehension thing again: so you're spending your money, but investing theirs, and minimising the resources available for the government to spend on essential services as an added bonus for you to the detriment of the country. How is that any different to the wider economy as a net result than them spending their money and you investing yours?
Earn your money, pay your taxes, spend the rest over your lifetime. Let your offspring do the same. No moral outrage involved.
Ok would it make you happy if I just invested my money on their behalf, equivalent to their annual salary? They are not getting anything off me in the short term.
Personally, I think inheritance tax is a great idea. Whilst they're at it, add capital gains tax to houses.
It's entirely inequitable for people to be gifted money entirely randomly - certainly doesn't drive social mobility in anyway. It's not taxing twice - the person who gets it didn't earn it and hasn't been taxed on it.
Whack the IHT to 20k or something, and then tax at 90% above that (after any cohabiting partner has died and any cohabiting children have left full time education).
+1 to that. I can sort of understand the childish sociopathic ****-you attitude that all tax is evil (at least that is consistent, albeit consistent jejune), but why IHT in particular attracts such vitriolic opposition is just really weird to me. Yet some people really seem to want to go to the wall to defend the "right" of middle-aged professionals to cash in a winning lottery ticket that they haven't even bought let alone earned. If you've brought up your kids to be half-decent examples of humanity they will be hugely embarrassed at receiving such a windfall anyway when so many of their friends and acquaintances have no such opportunity, and will in all probability give a large chunk away to charity anyway.
