Unpopular Opinions

One-fifth of the 3.7% of deaths that attracted inheritance tax were people dying under the age of 75. So we're talking 0.74% of deaths that might be considered unexpected.

Many people who die unexpectedly early will (likely) leave their property to a spouse or partner, or a dependent that qualifies for an exemption. The property may well be mortgaged (reducing any likelihood of taxation even further).

So we're talking about a the very extreme outliers influencing a broader policy.

96.3% of estates attract no tax whatsoever, which seems to be a key point to me. This actually affects a very small percentage of people at all and yet we all have a strong opinion on it because we don't like the thought of the Government getting their hands on everything we've worked so hard for (!)

It's not haphazard but it is arbitrary. But that's also the lottery of life isn't it? Some people will fall the wrong side of the date they choose to raise the pension age, for example.

Anyway, a very interesting debate and an emotive one but, really, I don't think the numbers convince me that scrapping inheritance tax is some devastating blow for equality. It's literally gifting money to people who already have absolutely loads of it. Which is probably why Sunak is massively in favour.

 

But all sorts of things are 'taxed twice' if that's the definition so it's a bit of a red herring. Capital Gains Tax, for example, covers loads of things that have already had tax paid on them because it's taxing the increased value of an asset when it changes hands.

My company's reserves are post-tax income but if I want to pay them out to myself or other shareholders, I can only do so up to certain limits per year without paying income tax. I can't just say: "Well, that's my company's money that it's already paid tax on and is now ringfenced as reserves, so I can take 100 grand of tax free cash, lovely jubbly."

The whole principle of taxation depends on money being taxed when it changes hands.

So it's a really not an argument that stacks up.

 

Capital gains tax as you say is taxing a growth in value that hasn't previously been taxed.
The shareholder dividend tax is a replacement for normal employee taxes. You either pay a salary which is taxed at a higher rate but deductable against corporation tax, or you pay a dividend at a lower % out of taxed company profits. The owner/shareholder can often decide the most tax effective. Once you have taken that out as salary or dividend it is then in your hands and already taxed. Why should further tax be payable on that sum if you give/leave it to your destitute brother for example as opposed to spending it?

 

Just to report: it happened to me and my brother.

 

You can give any amount of money to anyone completely tax free – as long as the person doing the giving survives seven years from the date of making the gift!

Inheritance tax is payable on 3.7% of deaths. If that applies to you, well done to you. There's going to be a lovely sum to pass on to whoever you wish.

Not sure I understand your point about salary / dividend. If I get paid a dividend it's not tax free! It counts as income and is taxed accordingly (even though the money has already been taxed when it was owned by a company). There's a dividend allowance of £5,000. Anything above that is taxed at 8.75% (basic rate), 33.75% (higher rate) or 39.3% (additional rate) depending on your total income.

But this is straying off the point, and I've made my view pretty clear. I just don't agree that in a meritocratic democracy we should let the very wealthiest four per cent compound the advantages their offspring enjoy by refusing to tax their wealth when they die, especially when the real-terms tax rates are pretty low. If they want to give their kids or friends a free lunch they are permitted to give it away in their lifetime.

 

You paid some tax on what you inherited you mean? How did you feel about that? Did you feel it was wrong to be taxed anything?

 

It felt unfair to have to deal with that in addition to an extremely unexpected death, yes. Especially as it was very clear that our father would have avoided incurring liability for the tax had he not died so unexpectedly. And, while comfortably off, he certainly wasn’t tremendously wealthy.

I would have no problem with everyone paying a tax on any inheritance over a given amount.

I’m not sure what you see as the difference between haphazard and arbitrary, but I meant the latter. Arbitrariness isn’t generally thought to be a good quality for any rule or policy.

 

As has been pointed out no-one knows when they will die or how much wealth they will have the day they die. Yes a lifetime gift is tax free if you are lucky enough to have that wealth well before you are likely to die and know that you won't need it for care costs for example.
I didn't suggest dividends were tax free. I suggested they are paid out of a company's earnings post tax rather than pre tax which is why they are taxed at a lower rate (not zero) as compared to a salary.
I agree inheritance tax is a great way to redistribute wealth and would leave a huge tax income hole if it were scrapped. However the principle of taxing wealth that has already been taxed simply because an individual bequeathes it to someone else rather than spending it doesn't sit well with me. If the argument is simply that it isn't meant to be fair, it is a desperately needed mechanism to distribute wealth, then fair enough.

 

Well, firstly, my sympathies. I'm reluctant to debate a point based on someone's real-life painful experience. Probate can be an awful process even when everything is organised and/or straightforward as it comes when we're at our rawest and most grief-stricken.

I agree that being left in a situation where you feel like people who could play the rules and had the money and access to people to help arrange their affairs in advance have had an unfair advantage is far from ideal.

I agree with you and @hornmeister that having a clearer, more transparent system with fewer loopholes would be much better too. But the debate started (I think?) from the point of scrapping inheritance tax entirely, which I think is a simple solution that (mostly) benefits people who don't need any more help from the system.

If anything the threshold should be increased so more people are completely exempt and the biggest estates are taxed much more. That might contribute towards 'levelling up' a bit more, I don't know.

It'd be great if as a society we had politicians and a media prepared to have the same discussion about fairness when it comes to people who aren't lucky enough to inherit hundreds of thousands too.

 

Yes, I would favour either scrapping it or increasing the threshold. I don't think my idea of taxing everyone who inherits a certain amount at a flat rate is politically very feasible.

On the plus side, at least my father avoided the Pozzo circus!

 

Good points, I think we've probably reached a point where we're perhaps not on the same side of the debate but at least in the same room.

Dividend is a bit more complicated than that. It's not some magic tax break based on the money having already been taxed. If you go over the income tax thresholds it's taxed at 33 then 39%.

Your point about care costs is probably the tip of another iceberg and I think that is definitely starting to shape the thinking of the middle-classed middle aged. The prospect of paying a care home owned by a hedge fund 65 grand a year should I not be able to look after myself is far, far more frightening than the idea my estate might be taxed at 15%. How many middle class people will end up selling their homes and leaving nothing to anyone thanks to the way our social care system has evolved?

But that's another debate.

 

To give you a live example of social care/private care. My mothers estate today is c£2m c50% of which is her house. She is severely disabled and has huge care costs involving 4 carers in 2 shifts of 2, 24x7. Cost per annum c£300k. Yes, £300k. Because her and my father (who died 12 years ago) were really careful with money and saved up their money in case of care costs, she has to pay all of this with no help from the state. So if she dies tomorrow she/we will have a huge IHT bill. If she dies in > 3 years time she will have run out of money and the state will cover her costs as she can't be forced to sell her house and so she will have a small IHT bill. She's an extreme version of not knowing what funds she will need and what the value of her estate will be on death. That could happen to any of us. When her investments run out, she will get a basic one carer plus a "sit in your wee for 4 hours and someone will come and help the carer clean you/move you" service. If she remortgaged the house to pay for the "£300k a year rolls-royce service", she would then have available funds again and so would be due to pay for all of her care costs once again.
Why doesn't she move into a care home ? Terrified of the horror stories, covid etc, and not being able to be with her dog....and it's her money to do whatever she wants with (which we all support).
Getting old is tough.

 

This in a nutshell, but sorry to learn of your circumstances.

If the state provided care at a decent quality and level I think I'd have less of a grump against IHT. Even less of a grump if it couldn't be avoided. My issue is it can be avoided, but only by those that are fortunate enough to do so. That to me is unfair.

 

The Star Wars franchise is all a bit ****.

The first three films were great, for their time, but everything since has been bad and only getting worse.

 

I don't think that's unpopular opinion, of the prequels the third was pretty good, also the Rogue One film was very good but the rest as you say.

 

I've not seen any of them, so it's purely my gut feel. That might make it unpopular amongst fans.

 

I only saw the first film. That was enough for me. Silly little pretend robots making cute squeeky noises. Worth seeing the first one for the ground breaking tech etc but not interested in any of the follow ups.

 

These are frightening and depressing times, but I'm sure the nation was able to draw comfort and feel reassured by the statesmanlike performance of the Secretary of State for defence, Grant Shapps, who was interviewed by the BBC this morning

 

Cometh the hour, cometh the man.

 

As any fule kno, the second movie was better than the first, so you missed out.

 

Agreed. A peddle bin and his tin foil pal. All made of Lego.

 

Pedal.

 

I'd say it's more that Disney is **** nowadays than a problem in the franchise itself. They could easily have made good follow up Star Wars movies, but they fumbled it hard.

Disney is well past their prime. Everything they make nowadays is super safe formulaic stuff.

It's see it as being similar to Game of Thrones. It was good with the original source material, and then someone else took over the plot once they passed the books and it really didn't go well. It's not a failing of the setting, more that the people who the torch was passed to weren't very good and definitely not up to the task.

 

The franchise was **** before Disney got involved. And that's the issue. 'Franchises.' Not films. Not art. Safe, business decisions to fill cinema seats, sell merchandise and deliver spin offs.

 

The prequels were crap, but I feel they were very close to being good. The overall plot arcs and story were decent; the problem is that George Lucas had complete control, unlike in 4-6. Lucas can't write a script ("I hate sand") and he is horrendous at casting. With a talented screenwriter, someone else in charge of casting (e.g. not casting Jake Lloyd against recommendations and going with the actually talented kid his staff recommended instead), and no Jar Jar ******* Binks 1-3 would probably have been very good movies.

Disney has none of the Lucas baggage, since they basically sidelined Lucas entirely and threw out all his ideas. All they care about is making safe choices so their investment doesn't bomb (as seen with their current obsession with live action remakes).

For all Lucas' many deficiencies he was at least he was trying to do something unique with 1-3, even if they were ultimately disappointing. JJ Abrams and friends had no plan and dear me, did it show. While I can see how 1-3 could have been good movies if the studios had kept Lucas in check, 7-9 are just unsalvageable for me and I can't see how anyone thought a new trilogy without actually planning out the overall story arc made any sense whatsoever.

 

I think the originals were before my time, so the special effects looked naff when I saw them.

I don’t see any Star Wars film as anything more than Avatar. Decent world building but silly and vastly overrated.

 

Also agree Star Wars is overrated, but probably a more unpopular opinion is Lord of The Rings is overrated.

Tried to watch the first one three times and fell asleep every time.

 

Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, The Hobbit, all overrated.

 

You can add Marvel films to that. Absolute bilge.

 

People who drive for mile after mile with their rear windscreen wiper on intermittent wipe - even though it is dry and the sun is shining - should be arrested and charged with driving without due care and attention. If you haven't noticed the wiper scraping over the rear window for the past 20 minutes then you obviously haven't been looking in your mirror.

A night in the cells, 6 months ban, £1000 fine (plus £60 victims fund) and a couple of hundred hours of community service would soon sort tbe problem out.

In cases where a range rover evoque is involved, the vehicle will be crushed.

 

Plastic shopping bags should be banned. Full stop.

Not charging 5 or 10p for them, ban them altogether.

Terrible things.

Those who go to the shops without a bag will either have to buy a £5 sustainable fibre bag for life or carry the shopping in their hands.

 

Indeed, as are Friends and Rosie Jones.

 

Sum 41 are better than both Green Day and Blink 182

 

But what about Maroon 5? Or Level 42? Or, indeed, UB40?