Comments

1. At 07:14 AM on 17 Aug 2007, Jaz wrote:

   Here we go again with people moaning about inheritance tax!

   Why should I pay tax on my EARNED income (i.e. from WORKING), when
   others don't pay anything on their UNEARNED income (i.e. from the rise
   in house prices)?

   We should reward hard work, not artificial windfalls.
   

2. At 09:06 AM on 17 Aug 2007, Paul Dockree wrote:

   The buzz word nowadays is "conversation" - be it about the rates of real depression in the Lancet today, Independence for Scotland and now Inheritance tax.

   Do I remember John Redwood said earlier on FiveLive an increase in "Green" taxes amongst others may need to be used to offset the abolition of Inheritance Tax under a future Tory Government? Amother conversation started. I laughed when he also suggested it would in fact mean taxing the "rich more" such an abolition.

   Yet there appears to be an industry set up to ensure all sorts of taxes could be avoided by using financial advisors. Billions earnt - little tax paid. More taxes paid? Yes Mr Redwood - I remain unconvinced in a world where Green Taxes can be offset in so many ways!

   It is my cynical suspicion that the Inheritance Tax is currently unassailable but we may see if anyone erred about Green aid!

   I start from the position that they always err in any case - so no change there then but I am also on the look out for disinformation too, Mr Redwood. In any case I intend to pay any taxes required.

   It can ALL be very very taxing you know? LOL

3. At 01:07 PM on 17 Aug 2007, Paul Dockree wrote:

   Jaz - I took what you seem to say on advisement and it appears you were right.

   Hard work like putting people in what is effectively the work house - nay lad that shouldn't be taxed - nor should a guilty conscious - be taxed as long as it can be done secretly. Without embarrassment to that hard worker and his or her colleagues.

   I am doing my best to ensure a particular artificial windfall from many years ago does not go untaxed and having great fun doing it - openly. See - that is my name at the top.

   A erred, Green aid unknown

4. At 04:19 PM on 17 Aug 2007, Andrew Callowhill wrote:

   This subject really annoys me because no one discusses it rationally or sensibly.
   
   I'm a Chartered Tax Adviser and I deal with Inheritance Tax fairly regularly.
   
   Firstly, whilst it does tax the estates of dead inviduals, the first net amount (i.e. after mortgages and debts are written off) of £300,000 is taxed at a nil rate i.e. it's exempt. (Quite a large sum). If you are passing on the family farm or the family business these too can be exempt. There are also a whole bunch of other smaller exemptions. So, with a little sensible planning, tax can be avoided legitimately. After all the exemptions are taken into account, only the surplus is taxed at 40% (NOT, AS WAS SAID ON THE MORNING SHOW, THE WHOLE AMOUNT !) So, you can have £300,000 tax free plus other stuff tax free and only pay tax on what is left over. On an estate worth £400,000 this will typically mean an inheritance tax liability of less than £40,000, under 10% ! It means his family still get more than £360,000. Sounds fairly reasonable to me.
   
   Secondly, the other things that inheritance tax taxes are trusts. Trusts are a way for an individual (usually a VERY wealthy individual) to tie up wealth to potect it from vanishing from a family. This is good and bad because whilst it protects the family's wealth, it stops the circulation of money within the economy. If money is simply tied up and nothing is done with it, other than hold it in property or shares or other investments, then wealth is not created within the economy, whihc means jobs are not created, etc. A fair lump of the £4 billion raised from inheritance tax is from the taxation of these old family trusts.
   
   So, by abandoning inheritance tax we would see more and more wealth being tied up effectively outside the economy, we would see those who already have plenty getting to keep more. These are probably the same people who think that their elderly relatives shouldn't have to subsidise their retirement home care from money that would otherwise pass to them. If they cannot be bothered with a little pro-active planning and end up being caught for inheritance tax, whose fault is that ?
   
   Finally, you should consider this in a historical context. In olden times, when a Baron or Lord gathered too much wealth or a section of society had too much wealth such as the Jews in Medieval England, then the Crown used to declare them a traitor strip their assets and usually their lives as well. I think our way is probably a better way.
   
   

5. At 10:11 AM on 18 Aug 2007, Charles wrote:

   Jaz talks such nonsense - all of us are subject to the same rules here. You work hard, you earn money, you buy the best house you can afford and if you work a bit harder than the rest and therefore have a slightly bigger house than the rest ( and lets face it in many areas of the country £300,000 does not buy you a big house ) you get the money taken of you to support the sroungers and wasters who cannot be bothered to do anything.

   There is no difference between taxing the wage in your pay packet and the value of your house. Both are products of your earned income.

6. At 09:17 PM on 18 Aug 2007, Michael Alexander Kearsley wrote:

   When the Conservative Party entered office in 1979, not long after they introduced reforms to Supplementary Benefit abolishing reductions in benefit for notional property value; bizarrely when they abolished Death Duties and other such taxes related to taxing estates of the deceased and brought them together into Inheritance Tax, they didn't exempt property from being assessable.

   Inheritance Tax doesn't actually raise that much money in terms of overall revenue, but administrating the tax takes up a huge amount of time by government and civil service.

   People who are way under the threshold still have to fill in a form saying that the estate is below the level that would incur Inheritance Tax.

   In circumstances in which there may not be the money available to pay the tax on the home then a family could have to sell their home and move, in circumstances in which there has been a recent bereavement of someone in their family, in some cases multiple bereavements and all these things add to stress in situations in which people are trying to go on with their lives at the same time as dealing with the bereavement and maybe administration of an estate.

7. At 10:31 AM on 19 Aug 2007, Paul Dockree wrote:

   Inheritance Tax? You get parents names from Inheritance too - do you not?

   Ah but what is in a name? Too much I fear. Confusing information I mean. Misinformation too. I will take not much notice then but at least I noticed and newspaper front pages too. Taxed too much you see?

   Climax - A Hearsay Elder Kneel

   Oh does he indeed? LOL

8. At 02:27 PM on 19 Aug 2007, Paul Dockree wrote:

   I am terribly selfish but then that is my problem with the grand unveiling of John Redwood (and a Mr Wolfson)'s adaptation of another Tory's earlier ideas. Wolfson? Why does the Alan Parson's Project musical group and the album "Ammonia Avenue" come to mind? Wolfson?

   Ammonia in Mr Redwood's reaction that everybody didn't fall on his proposals with joyous cries of acclamation and he I think had a justified swipe at the Beeb for digging out an old VT chestnut to depict Mr Redwood. Apologies for the latter has been made.

   But Mr Redwood and possible selfishness. Where has he been? What I want from all politicians is more team work. Not "if your ideas don't work we will try mine" Now we appear to be trying his ideas and if they do not work either - in making the Conservatives seemingly more electable - NEXT!

   How much in politics hasn't got done because the ruling party is spending its valuable time undoing what they disagreed with from their predecessors legislation.

   How often at the end of 4/8 or 12 years tenure in power has the Government re-affirmed their pledge to do something they perhaps promised in their first term manifesto? Doh!

   Inheritance Tax, Mr Redwood? OK. And the rest please. Mr Cameron and his close colleagues are capable of a good idea or twelve you know? Combine them and agree with each other more. You mightn't get all you want but we the public may benefit for a change.

   We get nothing from certain factions within Opposition winning arguments between themselves. Nothing at all except perhaps humour watching a John Prescott character in the referees' role.

This post is closed to new comments.