IHT- how to avoid if you have enough wealth

up to a million pounds can be passed on untouched

At the moment, yes.

I suspect many are worried how Labour might alter the thresholds though, hence all the debate about IHT.

I understand your point, but who would you prefer to be taxed to pay for health, education and so on? Someone with no inheritance behind them who goes to work every day and loses 20, 40 or 45% of their earnings (over a small allowance) to tax, and more to NI, or someone who may or may not be doing likewise but also has a chunk of unearned income land in their lap?

It's not as though IHT is charged on the whole estate, or even anything over £12500 - up to a million pounds can be passed on untouched. If you see an estate that has already attracted IHT and is still worth over £1m as a 'pittance' then that probably does explain your attitude.

choughdancer

M0nica

We cannot all pick and choose what we want taxation to be spent on. I doubt there is a person in the country who doesn't disapprove of some aspect of government spending.

But we are a society under th rule of law and we accept that if there are things money is being spent on that one person disaproves of, there are other people who disapprove of the expenditure the first person approves of, so it evens out.

Personally, I put the common good ahead of other considerations. if I am fortunate enought to pay IHT, then I am more than happy that, even after death I contribute to the maintenance of the safe and stable country that has enabled me to have such a successful life.

Well said MOnica, and also this:
As far as I am concerned, and there is likely to be IHT paid on my estate, IHT is my last thank you to the country who provided me with a politically stable regime to grow up in, (state) educated me, paid me to go to university, which enabled me to have a well paid professional career, and looked after my health without me worrying about the cost.

I'm in complete agreement with you.
I am surprised and shocked that some think that deliberately depriving the government of lawful taxes (spend, spend, spend) is an acceptable thing to do.
How are we to get public services running properly if the better off do this. I am not in any 'danger' of having enough to pay IHT; I truly admire and respect MOnica's attitude, and I would feel the same in her position.

spend, spend, spend as long as it is the persons money, it is legal and does not interfere with anyone else, so what?

As MaizieD has pointed out spending will create revenue for the Government via indirect taxes, just not at the punitive rate of 40%

To put the figures into perspective, I think currently less than 4% of the population pay IHT, though this figure is likely to rise with the more expensive properties, especially in the South East.
However, over 60% of the population are actually against IHT and say it is unfair. It is just a money grabbing exercise.

I think it is acceptable, and of course completely lawful, for people to chose to do what they want finally with their savings etc. I am neither shocked, nor surprised, that people like M0nica might be happy to leave a portion of her estate, which will incur IHT, to the government. I also understand that there are those who would prefer not to, that's entirely their perogative too.
But to say that these people are deliberately depriving the government of lawful taxes, doesn't stack up. IHT actually raises very little in proportion to other taxes.
Also, I see no moral justification in taxing an individual on their death, as this just represents double taxation. If you have already paid taxes when you earned your money, you are then being effectively forced to do so again. (Or triple taxation in my case if I count the IHT I already paid on the same estate 40+ years ago).

If the current government is so desperate for my pittance, and that of others here, that they wish to raise the IHT to shore up the economy, then they are obviously running a pretty poor show. But I would say that, of course.

I am not in any ‘danger’ of having enough to pay IHT

Precisely, which is why it’s so easy to think that others should feel the same.

Allira I still dislike the premise that it is not the deceased who pays IHT, it is their heirs because that t me is fairly illogical.

The money/estate belonged to a person who has presumably bought property and saved with money which has been taxed by the Governmet. Is is right or moral for that Government to decide that they are entitled to take nearly half of someone's savings (over a certain amount) because they have died?

Indeed. No logic involved.

M0nica

We cannot all pick and choose what we want taxation to be spent on. I doubt there is a person in the country who doesn't disapprove of some aspect of government spending.

But we are a society under th rule of law and we accept that if there are things money is being spent on that one person disaproves of, there are other people who disapprove of the expenditure the first person approves of, so it evens out.

Personally, I put the common good ahead of other considerations. if I am fortunate enought to pay IHT, then I am more than happy that, even after death I contribute to the maintenance of the safe and stable country that has enabled me to have such a successful life.

Well said MOnica, and also this:
As far as I am concerned, and there is likely to be IHT paid on my estate, IHT is my last thank you to the country who provided me with a politically stable regime to grow up in, (state) educated me, paid me to go to university, which enabled me to have a well paid professional career, and looked after my health without me worrying about the cost.

I'm in complete agreement with you.
I am surprised and shocked that some think that deliberately depriving the government of lawful taxes (spend, spend, spend) is an acceptable thing to do.
How are we to get public services running properly if the better off do this. I am not in any 'danger' of having enough to pay IHT; I truly admire and respect MOnica's attitude, and I would feel the same in her position.

GrannyGravy13

escaped enjoy your savings, they are yours to do with as you wish.

They are not and never should be a source of revenue for the Government of the UK!!

They will be a source of revenue for the government whenever they are spent.

MOnica See PM's under headings
Wallingford.

Mollygo

Not all on GN or not, enjoyed the benefit of MIRAS. We had it for a few years from 1995

^In 1994 the rate of relief was reduced by Kenneth Clarke, with further reductions in 1995 and 1997. MIRAS was completely abolished in April 2000 by *Gordon Brown, who argued it had become a middle class perk.*

But Gordon Brown retained that tax relief for landlords, which IMO was one reason for the explosion in buy to let. I still think it was a cynical exercise - it was thought that a huge rise in the availability of private rentals would absolve them from having to bother too much about the provision of social housing.

Of course they could have done away with Right to Buy - they had 13 years in which to do it - but of course that would almost certainly have lost them a lot of votes.

It is an iniquitous tax.

M0nica you are as entitled to your opinion as the next person.

My opinion is and will remain that I have said enough thank yous to successive Governments over my lifetime.

My Estate is a thank you to my family for all the love, support and encouragement they have given me since they came into my life 💙🩷

M0nica the general taxation system should be such that we can afford to educate our young, look after the health of the nation and maintain our public services without robbing graves.

GrannyGravy13

escaped enjoy your savings, they are yours to do with as you wish.

They are not and never should be a source of revenue for the Government of the UK!!

Hear hear!!

escaped enjoy your savings, they are yours to do with as you wish.

They are not and never should be a source of revenue for the Government of the UK!!

Allira Most people's main asset is their house, so not easily turned into spendable money. You can get Equity Release schemes but these roll up interest in such a way that you end up giving as much away to the company with whom you have the release scheme with as you would in IHT - even if the house is below IHT.

As far as I am concerned, and there is likely to be IHT paid on my estate, IHT is my last thank you to the country who provided me with a politically stable regime to grow up in, (state) educated me, paid me to go to university, which enabled me to have a well paid professional career, and looked after my health without me worrying about the cost.

Yes, d'you know what Allira, I didn't even question paying the big wodge of IHT when I was 20. I just accepted it as what you had to do. Since then, older and wiser, I've realised how absurd it is. My children have had the lecture, and in a sort of sad way, for me and my experience, they are now well past 20 anyway.

I still dislike the premise that it is not the deceased who pays IHT, it is their heirs because that t me is fairly illogical.

The money/estate belonged to a person who has presumably bought property and saved with money which has been taxed by the Governmet. Is is right or moral for that Government to decide that they are entitled to take nearly half of someone's s savings (over a certain amount) because they have died?

I say that as someone whose estate, unless we won a sum of money, would probably not attract IHT. if I thought it would be over the limit, I'd spend it asap too.

I'm going to spend, spend, spend without feeling any remorse in order to avoid my children incurring IHT. With help, their homes are all paid for, so they're now the ones who are property rich because I have no need to be. I've just ordered a new car, and am going to South Africa next year.

My theory is that I paid a big wodge of IHT on my own parent's estate when I was 20 something, so I'm insuring this same estate won't be taxed again and again after my demise.

I'm happy for others to do what they like, but I'd rather people I know and love had the benefit of my wealth rather than any wasteful government. They manage to get you all round if not, and I've already given more than enough.

We cannot all pick and choose what we want taxation to be spent on. I doubt there is a person in the country who doesn't disapprove of some aspect of government spending.

But we are a society under th rule of law and we accept that if there are things money is being spent on that one person disaproves of, there are other people who disapprove of the expenditure the first person approves of, so it evens out.

Personally, I put the common good ahead of other considerations. if I am fortunate enought to pay IHT, then I am more than happy that, even after death I contribute to the maintenance of the safe and stable country that has enabled me to have such a successful life.

biglouis

Hear hear - have a great time in Galapagos.

Im leaving my house to a nephew who lives in a council flat so regardless of whether he decides to live in it or sell it he wil still profit. However I believe my estate will be under the limit for IHT. Governments has squandered too much of my tax money in the past on causes I dont approve of.

A few months ago I recall you telling of an illness - how are you feeling?

Hear hear - have a great time in Galapagos.

Im leaving my house to a nephew who lives in a council flat so regardless of whether he decides to live in it or sell it he wil still profit. However I believe my estate will be under the limit for IHT. Governments has squandered too much of my tax money in the past on causes I dont approve of.

Have a wonderful time , the Galapagos goers. Sounds amazing .

Hope you're having a wonderful time maddy.

maddyone

Agree CLG.
It’s our house in the south that could eventually take us over the limit for IHT. I’m concerned about that. We’re not rich, we were both teachers, but we have some savings and we both inherited small legacies from our parents. We’re not liable for IHT now but I wondering if the budget will change IHT so that we become liable. For example, the additional amount for home owners could be abolished which would pull us into liability. This is a big concern for ordinary people such as ourselves.

You won't ever be liable to IHT because you'll be dead when/if it's paid. It's your children who would have to pay it.