• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

Plight of Farmers.

Wisbech Eagle said:
It just isn’t. Inheritance tax is morally right.

Why should anyone inherit so much they have no need to work?

It’s a tax. It’s not confiscation. Heirs still get the majority. Spouses get it all. So do children if it’s gifted in time. You just need to prepare.

Why should any distant relative suddenly become rich? Why is it wrong for the rest of us to get a share?
Click to expand...
Of course it is not moral. The wealth has already been taxed multiple times, through income tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, VAT and the numerous other taxes. Taxing it again upon death is the state acting like a vulture. Also, laughable to suggest that it is 'the rest of us getting a share'.
 
georgenorman said:
Of course it is not moral. The wealth has already been taxed multiple times, through income tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, VAT and the numerous other taxes. Taxing it again upon death is the state acting like a vulture. Also, laughable to suggest that it is 'the rest of us getting a share'.
Click to expand...
Everyone else gets a share of every £ of tax paid by someone else. That’s the way taxes work. Do you think they just go into the pockets of MPs?

It’s hardly unusual for more than one tax to apply. You buy most things with income that has had income tax deducted but with VAT added. IT is no different. It only affects the rich who fail to make sensible arrangements. Give your wealth away 7 years before you die to a relative and they inherit the lot. You can even insure against the risk to them of you dying earlier. What your spouse inherits, usually most of it, is free of tax.

People who plan need have no concerns. Take advice! Write wills! Give gifts! It’s when there are no immediate heirs and only distant relatives who will inherit, people often with no connection at all to the deceased, or people haven’t been planning sensibly, that there will be an issue. Then the estate must pay on anything above £325,000.

Is it moral that someone gets a large windfall from someone they might have never met, but you don’t?
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Everyone else gets a share of every £ of tax paid by someone else. That’s the way taxes work. Do you think they just go into the pockets of MPs?

It’s hardly unusual for more than one tax to apply. You buy most things with income that has had income tax deducted but with VAT added. IT is no different. It only affects the rich who fail to make sensible arrangements. Give your wealth away 7 years before you die to a relative and they inherit the lot. You can even insure against the risk to them of you dying earlier. What your spouse inherits, usually most of it, is free of tax.

People who plan need have no concerns. Take advice! Write wills! Give gifts! It’s when there are no immediate heirs and only distant relatives who will inherit, people often with no connection at all to the deceased, or people haven’t been planning sensibly, that there will be an issue. Then the estate must pay on anything above £325,000.

Is it moral that someone gets a large windfall from someone they might have never met, but you don’t?
Click to expand...
Yes I think it immoral, people should be able to leave their assets to whoever they like. The government, as with most tax, will make bad use of it - it's just like giving whisky to an alcoholic.
 
georgenorman said:
Yes I think it immoral, people should be able to leave their assets to whoever they like. The government, as with most tax, will make bad use of it - it's just like giving whisky to an alcoholic.
Click to expand...
You just don’t like government even though they are chosen by all of us to serve our needs. You think everything is bad that doesn’t match your own, highly dubious, opinions.

You can think it’s immoral. That’s your right. Others don’t and that’s there’s. IT exists because successive governments, of all types, have decided it should. Governments chosen by us.
 
Mapletree said:
This may help.


Either £1,500 or £3,500.

Paul Nutall, the ex leader of UKIP, appears to have actually done what Rayner was found not to have done. Perhaps you would like to comment on that.
Click to expand...
Because obviously I'm going to to put up a defence for Paul Nuttall? Well bad luck. If you think politicians should have their clothes and holidays paid for then fair enough.
The expression "No such thing as a free lunch" apparently doesn't apply.
 
Top 10 British “family farmers” and how much tax exempt agricultural land they own.
1 Duke of Buccleuch 268,618 acres.
2 Duke of Westminster 125,311 acres
3 Duke of Atholl 124,163 acres
4 Duke of Northumberland 120,514 acres
5 Duke of Beaufort 53,691 acres
6 Duke of Argyll 51,309 acres
7 Duke of Devonshire 50,948 acres
8 Duke of Roxburghe 44,376 acres
9 Duke of Marlborough 24,725 acres
10 Duke of Norfolk 19,793 acres
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Top 10 British “family farmers” and how much tax exempt agricultural land they own.
1 Duke of Buccleuch 268,618 acres.
2 Duke of Westminster 125,311 acres
3 Duke of Atholl 124,163 acres
4 Duke of Northumberland 120,514 acres
5 Duke of Beaufort 53,691 acres
6 Duke of Argyll 51,309 acres
7 Duke of Devonshire 50,948 acres
8 Duke of Roxburghe 44,376 acres
9 Duke of Marlborough 24,725 acres
10 Duke of Norfolk 19,793 acres
Click to expand...
So?
  • Forestry Commission: Owns about 2,200,000 acres
  • Ministry of Defence: Owns about 1,101,851 acres
  • Crown Estate: Owns about 678,420 acres
  • National Trust & National Trust for Scotland: Owns about 589,748 acres
  • Pension funds: Own about 550,000 acres
  • Utilities: Own about 500,000 acres
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
You just don’t like government even though they are chosen by all of us to serve our needs. You think everything is bad that doesn’t match your own, highly dubious, opinions.

You can think it’s immoral. That’s your right. Others don’t and that’s there’s. IT exists because successive governments, of all types, have decided it should. Governments chosen by us.
Click to expand...
Every sensible person should not like government and should consider taxing the dead as immoral.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
So?
  • Forestry Commission: Owns about 2,200,000 acres
  • Ministry of Defence: Owns about 1,101,851 acres
  • Crown Estate: Owns about 678,420 acres
  • National Trust & National Trust for Scotland: Owns about 589,748 acres
  • Pension funds: Own about 550,000 acres
  • Utilities: Own about 500,000 acres
Click to expand...
Organisational don’t die and get charged inheritance tax. They have no need to buy land simply to avoid tax.

The Forestry Commission? Manage forests?
The MOD train soldiers?
Crown Estate? Historical legacy, managed sympathetically with its land let to tenants.
National Trust? Manage some of our most treasured places for all our benefit. I am a member.
Pension Funds? Make investments for the benefit of members.
Utilities? That covers several activities. I don’t know the answer to all but water companies own reservoirs.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Everyone else gets a share of every £ of tax paid by someone else. That’s the way taxes work. Do you think they just go into the pockets of MPs?

It’s hardly unusual for more than one tax to apply. You buy most things with income that has had income tax deducted but with VAT added. IT is no different. It only affects the rich who fail to make sensible arrangements. Give your wealth away 7 years before you die to a relative and they inherit the lot. You can even insure against the risk to them of you dying earlier. What your spouse inherits, usually most of it, is free of tax.

People who plan need have no concerns. Take advice! Write wills! Give gifts! It’s when there are no immediate heirs and only distant relatives who will inherit, people often with no connection at all to the deceased, or people haven’t been planning sensibly, that there will be an issue. Then the estate must pay on anything above £325,000.

Is it moral that someone gets a large windfall from someone they might have never met, but you don’t?
Click to expand...
I find this a bit offensive. I lost my partner of 20 years to lung cancer recently She died within 5 weeks of diagnosis. We wrote wills but committed the crime of choosing not to marry because we both experienced horrendous marriages previously. Both were abusive in their own way. We were very, very happy together. We owned a property together and were married in everything but name, yet I had to pay tens of thousands in IHT, having our property valued within weeks of her death despite living in it with all her things still here, and paying this tens of thousands immediately to HMRC.

I consider myself an immediate heir. We did write wills. We didn't "gift" it away because we needed what we had to live and enjoy ourselves. I believe we were "sensible" people. We just didn't want to get married through personal experience. Her estate was above £325,000 because of the flat the we bought (and loved) together.

The money that I paid is irrelevant. Many people will think that we were "lucky" to have enough to tax. The fact that we both came back from, literally, the brink of losing everything material or otherwise from previous relationships doesn't make us not sensible. My kids and myself have had to pay the price for our "lack of planning".

That said, I wouldn't change a thing of the time we had together. It just seems a little bit wrong that that our very personal choice cost so much. And I'm just glad that it was my lovely other half that went first as I'm not sure how she would have coped if it was the other way round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top