What makes you believe you are entitled to my money? Explain. If you are poor, get a marketable education or skill. You are not my problem and your are not my responsibility.
@@TheLucanicLord In point of fact I'm a Harrow old boy. My parents paid my Harrow fees, and I pay my children's Harrow fees. That, right there, is what you call net zero, child. I give back everything I get given and all I have is only what I have earned. So if you think you have a moral entitlement to my wealth, come try and take it. Go on. Try.
Inheritance tax is but a distraction. The real issue is about taxing income from productive work equally to income from capital gains, rent and dividends.
Can we get the money back from dodgy covid contracts before we start picking on vulnerable people? Also, James is right. Why do the super wealthy need more money? What's wrong with them?
I saw a meme that was a picture of medieval peasants toiling in a field, and one says to another "if the lord has more gold then he'll share it with us, it stands to reason".
@Thomas King.....and the billions wasted on the disastrous lockdown in paying people to stay at home...and the knock on effects on inflation and interest rates and it's the poor who suffer the most of course....totally agree.
Agree on Covid but not IHT.The dead should have the right to leave the money (which has already been taxed often twice) to whom they want. Sweden which is far more socilaist than the UK has no Inheritance tax. In fact most sociliast countries have either no or little inheritance tax e.g. Italy which is 4% above 1 million Euros.
i am happy to volunteer to anyone who doesnt want to pay inheritance tax to pay the £40k to get the £600k inheritance - i will take one for the team :-)
And if she'd have moved house to the next street, she'd have needed £600k to be able to buy that house. The property value gain only exists if you don't need anywhere else to live.
@@KevinSheedy10I know, but there is talk in this thread about taxing unearned income and house value increases is used as an example. Possibly ok to tax it at death, but a problem for the inheritee who may not have the money to hand to pay the tax, and if forced to then sell the house to pay it, may not get the value that was placed on the property.
@@KevinSheedy10 Her son was alive and could be on the dole for all we know. Why should he be pushed out of a home because he can't afford the tax? There should be some rule where if the children are renting or on the poverty line they don't pay tax on inheritances like this. He'd have to pay tax on the sale as it is. Inheritance tax is really just another tax on he poor. All taxation should be means tested. I know it's an asset worth a lot, but i wouldn't want to sell my mum's house either (it is worth a lot less, but still). And, like the first guy was saying, it's the estates worth multi millions that pay zero or close to zero tax.
So you think someone should continue to claim dole while sitting on a mortgage free asset worth £700k. Take a loan out, pay the tax and stay in the house if you want. I have very little sympathy.
its called ‘hoarding’, which is clearly the issue of the super rich (one of the issues) ‘hoarding’ is a nice clear word and commonly understood concept, but yet never is this clear word used to describe the condition and issues of the super rich
@@anonomous8719it's not about the government looking after the individual it's about looking after everything else. You see unemployed yobs and drug addicts on the street? How do you fix that? Just chuck em all in prison? Who pays for it? Reeducate them and get them to be functioning and employed? Who pays for that? Just do nothing and avoid it and let those areas they live become ghettos and everyone who isn't like that but lives nearby suffer from this? That's what's happening now. The government has to not be useless or corrupt but if it isn't it needs tax money to better society. Private services just don't do it. They don't. They build a nice building for an office and that's it.
It's called arrogance and entitlement that you think you are entitled to a cut of someone else's property. The funny thing is that the money is never used as intended anyway. Why should someone be taxed to pay for young third world men to sit in hotels up and down the country.?
@@stephenmurray2851 fundamentally there must be a way for a 'state' to fund itself. If people do not contribute to it then there won't be a state, just individuals living (and fighting) in fiefdoms. You want that? The government won't take your property but the next big gang/tribe/kingdom will.
I love that the caller recognised that her opinion was based upon a feeling. We all do it, so kudos to both James and caller for getting to the heart of the matter.
However, that feeling of hers will then be pounced upon by parties wanting her vote. It’s the Brexit mindset all over again. Short term gains for long term pain. Vote Tory for no inheritance tax. Oh look, they then continue on a tragic road of failure for the rest of the country…
And kudos to James for dealing with it fairly graciously. I think she might have got shorter shrift from some people, and James himself can be quite snappy if he thinks people are being disingenuous. In this case, it was just the caller's 'feeling' that the tax is invidious.
That sounded very hollow to me - as if she just ran out of arguments to give so used it as a fall-back, knowing that an argument can't be made against a non-descript feeling. When I talk politics with people who don't know the facts (and importantly, know they don't know), they generally don't think their feelings are a rational basis upon which to create government policy. Nothing she said indicated that her position changed from thinking she had a valid argument against inheritance tax, nor did she say anything that indicates she might re-evaluate her position now that she knows the information upon which she formed her opinion was incorrect. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to see someone willing to be corrected when they say incorrect nonsense, but I wouldn't add any further praise than that.
Each to their own, they are only human and we need to talk to people like this caller to educate them a little. Just because you didn't think she agreed with JO, doesn't mean that she didn't go away and think about it. @@callum9999 Thank your lucky stars she's not MAGA.
Anyone saying 'but what about the elderly who worked for decades and want to pass a bit on to their kids' should note that inheritance tax does not even start until it gets over a threshold. That is currently £325000 and it gets even higher with certain exemptions. The people who are going to benefit most from an inheritance tax cut are the very rich, not the average person. And more importantly, the dodges to avoid it completely for the ultra-rich need to be cracked down on. There is an issue for house prices going well over that threshold, but the real problem there is houses are stupidly overpriced. Even so, there are ways around the problem without reducing the tax overall and without giving the very rich even more.
its almost a million quid for a married couple wanting to pass down a property to direct relatives (children/granchildren/stepchildren). £325k per spouse plus about £175k additional allowance for a primary property going to direct relatives. I hadn't realised that second part so perhaps explains why so few estates trigger it?
except that threshold is inclusive of all assets, including the value of your house. So it is quite realistic that the threshold is in fact reached for a lot of people you wouldn't call the richest. That's more of an issue of ballooning house prices though, as there are many old people who purchased the house at a much lower value and never actually realised what it was worth nowadays. Edit: for clarification, this inheritence tax cut would definitely still benefit the most rich first for sure. Just that a lot of elderly peoples estates do actually get slapped with inheritance tax when they pass.
@@bearwynnnot all assets. Your pension is excluded, as are certain investments like if you have held AIM shares in an ISA for the relevant qualifying period. To be honest, there are sufficient loopholes and exemptions that most can avoid IHT liabilities if they seek advice early enough.
That poor lady at the end 😢 I remember a guy on Question Time telling the audience that, even though he earned £90K per year, he wasn't in the top 10%. Facts don't reach these people
It's almost as if all people in government are already rich. Imagine being a PM who is a billionaire. Then, he decided to get rid of inheritance tax so his daughters don't have to pay. It beggars belief.😂
@@jamieakahenry They won’t pay it anyway. His wife stands to inherit from her billionaire father and while she is currently a non-dom (she never gave that up, just agreed to pay uk tax on her income) that will expire at some point and they will jet off into the sunset long before that happens.
Ban Private Education and Private Healthcare and watch services improve overnight. They say "It will take time", no it won't, not if YOU have to use it as well.
"...and watch services improve overnight...." I presume the teachers unions will enjoy lots disgruntled sharp elbowed parents turning up at parents evening? The education dept. would need to up the funding to take in the influx of children as well, it would be promised but i doubt much would appear?
@@MrBrock-kp5te They can be disgruntled as much as they want, if they cannot use a system responsibly then it should be taken away... that's what they constantly tell us.
If the beneficiary continues to live in the house then the IHT on that portion of the estate should be deferred until the property is sold. It would be a simple enough matter to have this recorded with the Land Registry. That way, nobody has to move out to pay a tax bill just because their parents died cash poor, but the tax still comes due eventually.
@@fran_cusp_id so they never sell, is that a major problem? Unless there is a single beneficiary, the property will likely be sold as the various heirs will prefer their share to a house that they occupy jointly with their siblings. So I doubt this would have a major impact on the housing market.
There already is exemptions if the property is your main residence, the "main residence nil rate band" This is currently £175,000 per person and applies if your estate is worth less than £2 million. This means someone dying in 2023 could pass on assets worth up to £500,000 tax-free, if this included their residence passing to their descendants.
@@rzrshrk7883 lol not at all for me (a student with zero assets). I was just thinking out loud really cuz as far as the gov is concerned, i'd imagine they'd want that money right away
The thing I don't understand is that many people state that their issue with inheritance tax is that they are paying tax on money that has already been taxed. Apart from the fact that that is frequently not the case, as mentioned with property accruing value, all of our money gets taxed more than once. Money gets taxed over and over constantly, it's not like there is new money being put into the system non-stop, it's the same money, for the most part being taxed over and over again. We don't complain about paying VAT, because we've already paid income tax or refuse to pay council tax or road tax, because we've already been taxed. Also it makes no sense for someone to be perfectly fine with paying tax on money they have had to work for, but be against paying tax on money they haven't had to work for.
In 1992 my family paid over eighty thousand pounds inheritance tax, my attitude at the time was and still is that my family were very fortunate to inherit a vast sum of money and that we could easily afford to pay the tax, also we all believe in the welfare state.
@@anonomous8719so you are for big daddy corporations pulling your hair and spitting in your mouth instead? The absence of government is complete corporate tyranny doing whatever they want to their workers. The government will provide what is needed to keep corporations happy.. either the corporations will pay for it or the workers will.
@@anonomous8719 While government isn't perfect it's better than not having a safety net, I lost my job due to covid and I would have been homeless without even the currently dysfunctional universal credit system at least covering the rent while I got a new job. There are people unable to work who would otherwise fall into poverty or simply die without some level of the welfare state.
@@anonomous8719 and as someone who works in local government, i know it's unrealistic to trust people to be able to look after themselves in every contingency. People get sick, grow old, have mental health issues, end up as orphans, get abused, get divorced, just have bad luck or lets be honest, have been totally irresponsible and life has caught up with them. Please note that the last group has been the smallest group I have encountered and they usually have other issues. Hence a safety net in the benefit system and support for people who need it from the state ( at least what's left of it) funded by tax and NI contributions. But I do agree we should all try not to be at the mercy of the "state" as the provisions are far from adequate and are being cut back everyday.
It's simple really. Tories have their followers convinced that this tax break would apply to and benifit them as well, not realuzing that in fact their taxes will go up to pay for this as their tax brackets *aren't* getting adjustef for inflation and more of their income will now be taxed at higher rates to give their money to the people who least need it. Basically, the Tories know they're going to lose badly and this is a parting gift to themselves and their friends (who they expect to take care of them when they get kicked out)
After 14 years of austerity he is going to reward the rich who it didn’t affect with a game changing inheritance tax cut that will secure the rich stay rich forever.
If you don't want to be poor get an education or marketable skill. Loose some weight, your lifestyle choices are clearly impacting your ability to contribute.
@@thegrandmuftiofwakanda Do you ever get fed up being wrong about everything, looking at your channel you are obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
@@Cam-mo7gq Apart from the valuable advice that if you don't want to be poor you should get an education or marketable skill, and look after your health, you mean? You should thank me for this sage council. You need it.
In 2020-2021 tax year, only 4.3% of those that paid inheritance tax were from estates over 1 million pounds, ie the rich. The rest come from estates under that. Think about the average house price in London, most of them are over the inheritance tax limit. This isn't about taxing the super rich, it's about taxing the middle classes, and in London, house owning working classes.
Like I said, it’s a scam. Inheritance tax is there to keep the middle class middle. Just when you think you might be building some generational wealth for your family, here’s 40% duty so your kids are back in square one.
It's why many 'hopefuls' vote Tory in the UK & Republican in the U.S. They're on 30 grand a year, don't own a business & aren't an inventor or a property tycoon, but think that somehow in the next few years they'll be in a position where they have to worry about Higher Rate Tax and Inheritance loopholes. Madness.
Because some of us have aspirations and are not happy with mediocrity. Some of us hope some day we might hit it big. And if it does happen, it will have been thanks to hard work, being smart and taking risks - not thanks to any government handout.
Also, completely dismisses the single parents with three jobs who'll never get off the bottom rung because there isn't enough money in the council/education/affordable homes etc
@@Felix-risingPlenty of people have kids they can afford and then circumstances change. Beyond that, no one is saying they can't afford the children, they're saying they'll never have an estate to pass on as they never were able to get out of rented property.
I'm also perplexed as to why her sister was "working 3 jobs" to keep a 600K house... I'm thinking the house was a TAD too big for what she could actually afford???
I used to work in the inheritance tax office. Most wealthy estates do not pay inheritance tax, because their solicitors use the rules to write most of it off, via forms of business, farming, spousal relief. It matters not what a will may have said, the family and their solicitors tend to alter the will after the fact, in order to make use of these rules to dodge paying the tax that is due.
How do you see spousal relief as falling into the category of avoidance? It's a reasonable deferral tool that automatically applies and is primarily designed to ensure the surviving spouse doesn't have to sell the family home and the full amount should then become payable on the successor's death.
@@inBODwetrust13 Because I worked for 7 years in the Inheritance tax office and I saw first hand how estates used this to avoid paying tax that would otherwise have been due. The accountants/solicitors alter the will to leave EVERYTHING to the wife... then the wife simply distributes the estate to the rest of the family/friends etc, with no tax (which is illegal but there was nothing we could do to stop it).
to the guy whining in the comment section under almost every post on why he should pay inheritance tax. I want to make sure that you read it: "Entitled to your taxes, because everybody else who is poor or not rich enough and therefore can't put money untaxable aside by buying homes and land has to pay taxes on 100% of their income and that twice and even three times while being forced to spend everything because people like you who inherited the income of their father who put his money untaxable aside by buying land and houses hands down his wealth to the son the son and the sons son. Sooo why should YOU be so entitled to have income that is not being taxed while everybody else has his income taxe twice and many times more??? BTW everybody else has to pay that inheritance tax, too. Just because you are wealthy enough to jump that bar you are suddenly exempt. How entitled can one be. If you don't want to pay that tax and profit from the services the taxes of everybody else provides, then eff off out of the country and don't scrounch social security, a safe environment for you kids to grow up, the safety to not being out to die if you fall on hard time, the safety to walk around unharmed in the night because there are police and lanterns. Just eff off. And let me guess YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION just because you dont like to hear the truth"
The thing that I think was missed in the discussion with the first caller is the fact that the richest people think it's normal for them to not pay tax - that they shouldn't pay tax. People with that social attitude, that's the constituency that the Tories are saying this for. It's not for the middle classes, it's for the landed gentry who want to rest assured that they will continue to benefit from their patronage to the Tories.
Absolutely amazing, bickering about paying inheritance tax, when the recipient received £560,000.00. The average cost of a 3 bed semi in Blackpool is around £166,000.00, there is a huge difference in prices throughout the country. My first house a 2 bed semi. bought in 1971 cost £1,650.00 a similar house down south east would have been around £50 to £70,000.00 then. I wish I could leave my family £560,000.00 after tax.
So you're saying you want to force the recipient to sell the home they live in and move to a cheaper part of the country all because their parent died?
This last caller is moaning that her nephew only got left £560,000 AND a house. The most I've ever had at one time was 25,000 - which my Dad left me, a man who spent most of his life working as a cab driver. And I'm still a tennant. I'd be kissing the person who left me over half a million and a house after tax. Her nephew has certainly got more of a leg-up than most people these days. He could buy another property, rent it out and not work another day in his life now (which is what he probably will)
It's not about people being thick. It's about what people are told by the media and politicians, all of whom are in the pockets of the wealthy.@@garyh1572
Anyone who owned the house in London years ago is now worth a lot of money. So why should the government get paid again when you pass away when you want to give the house to your kids or family
It’s not greed. It’s aspiration. It’s wanting a better lifestyle. Why should I pay more tax just because I’m willing to work harder to enjoy a nice lifestyle? I’m not judging people who are content with the basics. If that’s your aspiration, more power to you. But I shouldn’t have to finance your life choices with my taxes.
People don't realise that inheritance tax is only payable on estates worth more than £325,000. They think they will have to pay tax on the £2000 their dad left them. The media are happy to keep them in ignorance.
@@twograntan9285The house isn’t included in the £325k. You get a £325k personal allowance plus £175k nil rated property allowance, so technically £500k per person, a couple (based on certain assumptions) can leave £1million without hitting the threshhold
Bingo - people need to keep saying that I remember the "garden tax" was actually a large estate tax applicable to a tiny fraction of people Keep telling the truth, and the rest falls away (hopefully)
There should be no inheritance tax is it anyone fault that their homes increased and why is it OK for Charlie and his cronnies to pay none? 325000 can't buy nothing in London so don't think 325 is anything wake up the only people it effects is working class people
@@wendystewart8526 it's not a "fault", it's a commitment to society. The most someone loses, in terms of golden handshakes for the next generation, is a small percentage. Get a grip
Most people living in London are in the inheritance tax bracket due to no choice of their own and house prices going up. My parents came here with nothing and worked their way up made sacrifice to leave an inheritance for their children which is now going to be taxed at 40% how is that fair and why do we have this ridiculous tax? Charles who is worth billions didn't have to pay it? Ridiculous and it been more or less 20 years from since they raised the threshold why hasn't it increased to match the house prices? The only people it effects is poor working class people it's ridiculous
I saved and scraped for years to buy a house, why can’t I give that property to whoever I want, no one is selling anything so there is no windfall. The tax has been paid on that money.
I think for them it was the principle. If we had no capital gains exclusion on lived in property (say at a lower rate that worked out comparable to the bulk of the inheritance tax threshold) I don't think she would feel the same. It "feels" more natural to tax an asset that appreciated than someones estate left to loved ones upon death.
In Australia there is no inheritance tax and that plus a host of additional tax loopholes that only benefit the wealthy allows some of the richest individuals to pay no tax at all. Tax deductions for family trusts, capital gains, negative gearing, franking credits etc and a host of other deductions amount to billions of dollars that should be collected and spent on services that benefit the country. But my only grumble is if you look at how governments waste the taxes they’ve collected why give them more to waste. There’s a fundamental issue with our political system that comprehensive accountability of government spending is missing as there are no consequences other then loosing power for misuse of public funds. There needs to be significant consequences for politicians and public servants who waste our money and that’s never going to happen.
Whenever I hear people like the last caller, I wonder what I'm completely missing in life. I'm not so daft to assume that I know everything or that I'm always right, but to hear someone listen to reason and still argue against it always baffles me. The nephew was given (for doing nothing) half a million pounds. Not a bad outcome.
Just because it might unearned income for the recipient doesn't mean it was untaxed income for the the person that amassed it. A one bedroom flat in London is in the region of £500,000 in a semi reasonable area. Most working or middle class people that bought property in London have seen gains that would make youe eyes water, however it's not an income for them, it's a roof over their head. Even when you try to downsize to realise some gain, new properties are so dear that you're better off staying where you are because you will have to live in a shoebox in comparison. I guarantee that James and his accountants have made the full use of tax exemptions and aviodance schemes for his own wealth. When he talks about the 4% he's not talking about the uber rich, he's talking about those that haven't managed their estates like the really wealthy people that have the means to avoid this tax.
I completely agree with the first guy. As an only child to successful, hard working and lucky (to be born when they were) parents and someone who, when my parents die, will pay a very hefty chunk of inheritance tax. I have no problem with the concept of inheritance tax and the tories will not win my vote with their proposed changes. If properties stagnate and don't increase then I don't think it is right for my children to pay tax on something I have already paid tax for but I agree with the basic principle. However, my issue with inheritance tax is that for such a high percentage, it raises so little for the exchequer, something like £4b a year I believe. This is because anyone with just a bit more money than my parents' can turn their estates into trust funds and businesses, or pay financial advisors who help them to transfer ownership of homes long enough before they die to avoid the inheritance tax threshold. I don't think it is fair that I will pay potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds of inheritance tax, but king Charles last year inherited hundreds of millions of pounds from his mum and didn't pay a penny. If and when they are elected, rather than just reestablishing the old system, Labour need to close the loopholes including around capital gains and trust funds and increase the taxation on estates that have been taken out of the inheritance tax calculations.
When my grandparents died house was valued at £640,000 with assets totalling £800,000 (threshold was £700,000 then) for 2 siblings. My mum waited just over a year to drag the selling process out and sold it s Or £80,000 more which covered the tax pretty much
Not sure this is correct as one cannot inherit the estate until the IHT bill has been paid. Mum must have paid the amount due and then held onto the house.
So the situation here James is that a lot of people think they will be hit by the tax, even though in reality they will not. Sometimes a few loud voices make the perception of reality disproportionate to it's real counterpart.
It's emotive because for most people IHT is falling on a home. It's not just an asset or property. The caller does not explain if her nephew had to sell the house to pay the tax. That's the bit that hurts and feels unfair. I don't suppose regular people have that kind of cash sitting around in order to keep a family home. I say dont tax main residences at all unless the inheritors sell it and liquidise the increased value.
The final caller in this clip is fascinating. She, presumably, accepts that she goes out to work and earns a wage which she pays tax on, subject to her tax free allowance, but can't grasp the same concept that she can inherit an estate and have to pay tax on that , again subject to her tax free allowance. Why do people seemingly accept that they have to pay tax on money they earn but not on money they are gifted through inheritance?
James knows full well that the largest estates pay absolutely no IHT (and very little income tax) as it is usually off-shored and in trust. We are not talking about the top 4%, it's the upper middle - people who have worked for money and done well. Generational wealth is protected. Forcing the top of the middle to sell their properties (cash can go into evasion schemes) is just moving the deckchairs.
I'm no economic expert and far from wealthy enough to worry about inheritance tax but if we as a country can't find the money to pay dr's, nurses and paramedics more money so that we can attract more people into the nhs and keep people from leaving why cut any tax at the moment
Much of the value of anyone's final estate is the increase in value of their property through general inflation over many years. This has NEVER been taxed as income until someone dies, and even then it is paid by the deceased NOT the inheritors.
@@ricardosmythe2548 - yes, but as the deceased is not seeking to replace like with like it is a fair tax to pay. It is only when you consider the viewpoint of the inheritors does it become an issue - but there again, they are not paying the tax, the deceased is.
@@trevormj I wouldnt agree. The tax is placed upon the inheritance that belongs to the next of kin therefore its the next of kin who is being taxed. Dead men can't own anything. The tax is also layed out differently depending on if its a partner or children inheriting which futher proves this point. The premise of capital gains should be based on real growth in value not monetary value which is in constant decline
What if you live in your parents house, its worth 600k, its been the family home for decades, and your parents die? Suddenly you have to pay 40k which you don't have or be forced to sell up and buy another house. When she said the system should be means tested, this is what she meant! Inheritance tax should not apply on the sole home to an inheritor who does not have the financials to pay it off and currently lives there.
Inheritance Tax is a way to redistribute wealth from those who have passed away to everyone that is alive, rather than just the relatives of those that were lucky enough to accrue wealth. Reducing it simply entrenches further inequality of opportunity.
That's due to the lack of house building over the years forcing prices up. I personally think that's deliberate so house prices rise year on year meaning more people pay the tax.lets be honest in twenty years time everyone who owns a house there children Will have to pay it when they die.imagine how much house prices will be in fifty years young children growing up now are going to be debt ridden by this tax
Why is it we’re ok with massive, reckless government spending, Over bloated bureaucracy’s, government waste and the answer to these issues is always……more tax. Reminds me of the saying, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
This would be a really powerful statement if it wasn't for the fact this conversation is being instigated on the back of news that inheritance tax is being cut
Although she couldn't articulate it, she felt the injustice that some are forced to sell the family home if a parent dies simply because the government decides that due to the estimated value you need to deliver £40k you don't have. Alternatively if the house had a slightly lower estimated value at the time of death, you would be allowed to keep the family in the house.
We need to pay tax to have the publicly provided things we need (e.g. NHS, schools, roads, water - oh sorry, the last one is optional, apparently). I’d rather pay a chunk of it after I’m dead.
The problem is the £325,00 threshold has not been raised for years! Fiscal drag!!! This tax is not about the wealthy, it affects virtually every homeowner and penalises single parents. This tax is promoting reckless spending and not taking responsibility for your own housing i.e. should I retire early, spend all that I have saved and get the government to house me!!!! I can't believe people want to keep this tax, what do they think the government spends it on? It's not the NHS!
@@SamEdwards-qy5im OK try and fine a family house in the south east for less than £325k. I fully understand the rules and allowances. The £1m stated assumes 2 parents and you leave the estate to your children, otherwise the threshold is £325k.
That woman towards the end clearly never had any money before and so having to pay 40k Tax just felt like an outrageous amount Forget the 550k clear bills they got.
The gentleman who inherited 560'000, after having to pay 40'000 could pop that money in a high interest account and in less than two years have that 40'000 back and then some. It must be tough for him.
And then pay tax again on the interest he’s earned. The answer isn’t to keep taxing people to death. The dumbing down and desire of some to keep people from being successful or aspiring to be better is ridiculous. Lefties won’t be happy until we’re all Muslim and living on the dole.
@@mainairmik996 And rightly so. He never earned that money, his kids will not earn that money, and so none of them have been/will be taxed on it as income. Anyone who actually worked and made £560,000 would pay tax on their earnings, so the man is getting free money, in other words 'income', and should pay tax on it. As should his kids when they inherit further down the line. Everyone pays income tax when they acrue money. Inheritance tax is just a different type of income tax.
I don't think an adjustment for the length of property ownership would work. Many people don't stay in the same house for most of their lives. If you sell up and move house two years before you die, for example, your new (final) property will not have had time to appreciate in value anywhere near as much as a property bought at 1980s prices and in which you lived for 40 years. All your previous properties would have appreciated, getting you to the point where you could afford your final house, at current prices, and it would be impossible to take all your other house moves, sales, appreciations, etc, into account.
No it doesn't. It should be on the value of the estate. Putting it solely on property would have consequences as people game the system. Suppose if it took off and cash was stripped from property via loans that were never paid then housing could become less valuable/more affordable..... As a renter I take it all back and agree to your reform.
King Charles avoided the 40% inheritance tax on the £400 MILLION his mummy ( Greedy Betty) left him in her will. One law for them, another for the subjugated pleb rest. 😢
I'm not opposed to the idea of an inheritance tax. I'm all for it. IF, and only if, that money is being spent wisely by the government - which is not happening. It's not surprising that citizens in countries where their government offers some semblance of competence, I.e. the Nordics, Singapore, etc, are actually in favour of such a tax. But it's a shame, we're in Britain. The inheritance taxes collected earlier this century were no doubt spaffed on an over-budgeted, pointless, incomplete HS2.
Almost every exchange of money is taxed. This is an exchange of money and should be taxed. I pay tax when I buy food and drink with my already taxed money.
I think a lot of people don’t oppose it simply because they don’t understand it, they just don’t realise that the large majority of people don’t pay it and will never pay it. They just hear “tax” and think it just should be lower
Do those 37% realise that they are having to pay more tax in order to give the 4% a tax free lump sum they never earned? That 4% getting even richer must add at least 2-3% onto the basic rate of tax.
The thing that people forget here is that the estate is NOT about the person who died but about the person inheriting - it is unearned income and actually has a large personal allowance on it. So why shouldn't it be taxed? Is it fair that someone worked their whole lives - sometimes more than one job at a time - to rent a flat or house and never got to leave anything to anyone whereas someone else worked their whole lives - sometimes more than one job at a time - and got to leave a whole house to someone? Most people in the UK will never have to pay inheritance tax anyway but this government are bigging it up as an issue so that they can "help" people "keep more of their money". Grr.
By that logic they shouldn't get the extra value of the house Surely if again doesn't count then aloss wouldn't. Makes you wonder what point of buying a house. Do taxes confuse you,?
@@NeilCWCampbell Explain that to those who suffered from negative equity when their homes became worth less than their mortgages through actions out of their control.
@@misimiki you would need to take this up with Keith lad 🤣🤣 Perhaps diving into a conversation halfway not the smartest thing. Let me guess brexit voter right 👍👍
Why is the concept of ‘what have i done to earn that’, not equally applied to the benefits system, the culture of entitlement and the grossly unproductive and inefficient public services….
"she only had enough to bury her and a house [worth over half a million]" Her issue isn't that she was poor, her issue is that all her money was in a house, if she wanted more cash, she should have sold it and downsized _like literally everyone else in such situations_
What really annoys me about this conversation as a whole is, in the rare case that someone with a shedload of inherited wealth spends money and doesn't just shove it offshore, what they are actually spending their money on. When you break this question down, you have to consider that they have all this money but they also inherit huge houses, cars and other assets, which immediately negates the need to purchase any of those- but as anyone with an iota of fiscal awareness understands, the worst thing you can do with an enormous pile of capital is just let it sit there, so what is done with it? It's invested. What's it invested in? Assets with a high rate of return over several decades that also have inelastic demand. What asset do we all know of that hits all of these criteria and that there's currently an enormous crisis revolving? That's right, it's HOUSES.
As counterintuitive as it seems, your real estate portfolio gaining value is indeed enrichment, but your own house gaining value in fact isn't. Your hovel bought for X now being worth 10 times X, just means that you have to immobilize 10 times as much capital to produce the same housing services for your own benefice. That's neutralized as long as you don't sell it or transmit it to your children, because your capital has increased correspondingly, but it bites as soon as you do. If your children inherit the hovel when you die and keep living in it, they have to pay the inheritance tax on 10.X instead of X out of their pocket to keep the same level of housing service; or they can sell it and buy a (10.X - inheritance tax on 10.X) worth hovel and accept the corresponding y% decrease of the housing service they enjoy. If the prices of real estate have grown more quickly than their salary, it made them poorer. The same way rents growing more rapidly than salaries makes tenants poorer.
I think perhaps what was left out of the conversation was that when the caller's sister worked 3 jobs the house wasnt worth that much. So thats understandable that the suster is upset because she would have seen what it took for her sister to keep her house.
She made 500K on a house she bought 60K in 1983. Isn't that enough money? There are people today who work as much as she did, and who will not even get a pension when they will retire!!!
@@daviddupond8626 She didnt make anything. She never got to enjoy the '500k' you speak of. You might say "sell it and buy cheaper" but ALL HOUSES GO UP IN PRICES even the cheap ones so she would have had to buy a much worse house and had a worse place to live and she still could not enjoy the '500k she made'. Think before you type.
My parents have worked hard all their life, and paid tax throughout. 325k isn't a huge amount these days, why shouldn't they be able to leave it in their will without having to pay tax again.
@@oakie007 same reason you get taxed in the first place. To pay for things that are used by society, particularly social care which is a huge burden on tax payers and is only likely to get worse
"It's not fair, my sister worked hard all her life!" Yeah, and managed at age 56 to die and leave her only child over half a million quid after tax! Such injustice!
@@david1731048 it's in the family. The family has a right to that money. If I have a home I don't want it to go to anyone but my children after me. You think we can take things to our graves?
@@trextor23she got her money (ie the asset value of the house) from the house increasing by over half a million in value from when it was purchased in the early 1980s.
This shouldn't be any concern to those who accumulated the wealth, because they'll be dead. It's people who've done nothing to deserve the money, but for being named in a last will and testament who selfishly whinge over paying inheritance tax.
James and callers rationale on the value of property is flawed.. The $30k home bought back in the 80's is worth exactly the same amount today relative to the size of the economy and relative to inflation.. Just because it's worth $250+k today does not mean you have made any money.. if anything you have lost some money as the building is older, may require repairs and has depreciated in value.. that 250k today may be a different dollar figure but has the same value as 30k did back in the 80's So any tax the government charge you on that home when you pass away and leave it to your kids is completely immoral and just pure theft on the part of the government..
Inheritance tax. It’s already been taxed at least over and over already. You paid tax when you earned it, paid another if you put it into savings. Taxed on interest. If you invest it and then withdraw it you are taxed again. I think we the people should keep our inheritance money tax free. we will never get on.
As a very clever man (not me) once put it; poverty exists, not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can never satisfy the rich.
What makes you believe you are entitled to my money? Explain.
If you are poor, get a marketable education or skill.
You are not my problem and your are not my responsibility.
@jgtemperton I note you haven't answered the question.
@@thegrandmuftiofwakanda You paid your Eton fees doing a paper round, did you?
@@TheLucanicLord
In point of fact I'm a Harrow old boy.
My parents paid my Harrow fees, and I pay my children's Harrow fees.
That, right there, is what you call net zero, child.
I give back everything I get given and all I have is only what I have earned.
So if you think you have a moral entitlement to my wealth, come try and take it. Go on. Try.
@jgtemperton I note you haven't answered the question.
Inheritance tax is but a distraction. The real issue is about taxing income from productive work equally to income from capital gains, rent and dividends.
Spot on!
a wealth tax :)
Absolutely,
Why stop at equal. Since it's admittedly non-productive income, it should be taxed way more.
If you want Communism, go to China.
Otherwise, get a marketable education or skill, or fail in the free world.
Can we get the money back from dodgy covid contracts before we start picking on vulnerable people? Also, James is right. Why do the super wealthy need more money? What's wrong with them?
I saw a meme that was a picture of medieval peasants toiling in a field, and one says to another "if the lord has more gold then he'll share it with us, it stands to reason".
Money back plus prison sentençes for all involved.
@Thomas King.....and the billions wasted on the disastrous lockdown in paying people to stay at home...and the knock on effects on inflation and interest rates and it's the poor who suffer the most of course....totally agree.
Agree on Covid but not IHT.The dead should have the right to leave the money (which has already been taxed often twice) to whom they want. Sweden which is far more socilaist than the UK has no Inheritance tax. In fact most sociliast countries have either no or little inheritance tax e.g. Italy which is 4% above 1 million Euros.
@@chatham43see Dido Harding for compensation
i am happy to volunteer to anyone who doesnt want to pay inheritance tax to pay the £40k to get the £600k inheritance - i will take one for the team :-)
"Give me that mansion, I'll pay your tax" :)
Hahaha 😂😂 class 🤌
A lot more than 40k
The problem is it's a home to people, not seen as a commodity to some, a 3 bed house shouldn't be worth £650k, our society/economy is broken.
And if she'd have moved house to the next street, she'd have needed £600k to be able to buy that house. The property value gain only exists if you don't need anywhere else to live.
She was dead?
@@KevinSheedy10I know, but there is talk in this thread about taxing unearned income and house value increases is used as an example. Possibly ok to tax it at death, but a problem for the inheritee who may not have the money to hand to pay the tax, and if forced to then sell the house to pay it, may not get the value that was placed on the property.
@@KevinSheedy10 Her son was alive and could be on the dole for all we know. Why should he be pushed out of a home because he can't afford the tax? There should be some rule where if the children are renting or on the poverty line they don't pay tax on inheritances like this. He'd have to pay tax on the sale as it is. Inheritance tax is really just another tax on he poor. All taxation should be means tested. I know it's an asset worth a lot, but i wouldn't want to sell my mum's house either (it is worth a lot less, but still).
And, like the first guy was saying, it's the estates worth multi millions that pay zero or close to zero tax.
So you think someone should continue to claim dole while sitting on a mortgage free asset worth £700k. Take a loan out, pay the tax and stay in the house if you want. I have very little sympathy.
its called ‘hoarding’,
which is clearly the issue of the super rich (one of the issues)
‘hoarding’ is a nice clear word and commonly understood concept,
but yet never is this clear word used to describe the condition and issues of the super rich
You like big daddy government looking after you?
@@anonomous8719it's not about the government looking after the individual it's about looking after everything else. You see unemployed yobs and drug addicts on the street? How do you fix that? Just chuck em all in prison? Who pays for it? Reeducate them and get them to be functioning and employed? Who pays for that? Just do nothing and avoid it and let those areas they live become ghettos and everyone who isn't like that but lives nearby suffer from this? That's what's happening now.
The government has to not be useless or corrupt but if it isn't it needs tax money to better society. Private services just don't do it. They don't. They build a nice building for an office and that's it.
It's called arrogance and entitlement that you think you are entitled to a cut of someone else's property. The funny thing is that the money is never used as intended anyway. Why should someone be taxed to pay for young third world men to sit in hotels up and down the country.?
@@stephenmurray2851 fundamentally there must be a way for a 'state' to fund itself. If people do not contribute to it then there won't be a state, just individuals living (and fighting) in fiefdoms. You want that? The government won't take your property but the next big gang/tribe/kingdom will.
@@benny7555 you're right. You changed my mind. In fact I think the government should take 100% of our money and we'll have world peace then.
I love that the caller recognised that her opinion was based upon a feeling. We all do it, so kudos to both James and caller for getting to the heart of the matter.
However, that feeling of hers will then be pounced upon by parties wanting her vote.
It’s the Brexit mindset all over again.
Short term gains for long term pain.
Vote Tory for no inheritance tax. Oh look, they then continue on a tragic road of failure for the rest of the country…
I was also under the impression facts didn’t require feelings, much in the same way feelings don’t seem to require facts.
And kudos to James for dealing with it fairly graciously. I think she might have got shorter shrift from some people, and James himself can be quite snappy if he thinks people are being disingenuous. In this case, it was just the caller's 'feeling' that the tax is invidious.
That sounded very hollow to me - as if she just ran out of arguments to give so used it as a fall-back, knowing that an argument can't be made against a non-descript feeling.
When I talk politics with people who don't know the facts (and importantly, know they don't know), they generally don't think their feelings are a rational basis upon which to create government policy. Nothing she said indicated that her position changed from thinking she had a valid argument against inheritance tax, nor did she say anything that indicates she might re-evaluate her position now that she knows the information upon which she formed her opinion was incorrect.
Don't get me wrong, it's nice to see someone willing to be corrected when they say incorrect nonsense, but I wouldn't add any further praise than that.
Each to their own, they are only human and we need to talk to people like this caller to educate them a little. Just because you didn't think she agreed with JO, doesn't mean that she didn't go away and think about it. @@callum9999 Thank your lucky stars she's not MAGA.
Anyone saying 'but what about the elderly who worked for decades and want to pass a bit on to their kids' should note that inheritance tax does not even start until it gets over a threshold. That is currently £325000 and it gets even higher with certain exemptions. The people who are going to benefit most from an inheritance tax cut are the very rich, not the average person. And more importantly, the dodges to avoid it completely for the ultra-rich need to be cracked down on.
There is an issue for house prices going well over that threshold, but the real problem there is houses are stupidly overpriced. Even so, there are ways around the problem without reducing the tax overall and without giving the very rich even more.
its almost a million quid for a married couple wanting to pass down a property to direct relatives (children/granchildren/stepchildren). £325k per spouse plus about £175k additional allowance for a primary property going to direct relatives. I hadn't realised that second part so perhaps explains why so few estates trigger it?
except that threshold is inclusive of all assets, including the value of your house.
So it is quite realistic that the threshold is in fact reached for a lot of people you wouldn't call the richest.
That's more of an issue of ballooning house prices though, as there are many old people who purchased the house at a much lower value and never actually realised what it was worth nowadays.
Edit: for clarification, this inheritence tax cut would definitely still benefit the most rich first for sure. Just that a lot of elderly peoples estates do actually get slapped with inheritance tax when they pass.
@@bearwynn nope. 4% for this. stop simping.
@@bearwynnnot all assets. Your pension is excluded, as are certain investments like if you have held AIM shares in an ISA for the relevant qualifying period.
To be honest, there are sufficient loopholes and exemptions that most can avoid IHT liabilities if they seek advice early enough.
That’s not a lot though. It’s not even the price of a house in London or just about elsewhere in the country.
That poor lady at the end 😢
I remember a guy on Question Time telling the audience that, even though he earned £90K per year, he wasn't in the top 10%. Facts don't reach these people
He was a plant.. but wasn't very clever.
Guess which uk family don’t pay any inheritance tax on assets of £1bn?
A lot of tax loopholes hole seem to be left on purpose.
all this gov use them. but we cant have the rich paying the same high tax the poor do eh?
We’ll of course, tax law is made by the rich.
It's almost as if all people in government are already rich. Imagine being a PM who is a billionaire. Then, he decided to get rid of inheritance tax so his daughters don't have to pay. It beggars belief.😂
@@jamieakahenry They won’t pay it anyway. His wife stands to inherit from her billionaire father and while she is currently a non-dom (she never gave that up, just agreed to pay uk tax on her income) that will expire at some point and they will jet off into the sunset long before that happens.
This is the reason that many of the very rich are moving out of the Uk
Ban Private Education and Private Healthcare and watch services improve overnight. They say "It will take time", no it won't, not if YOU have to use it as well.
Correct
Education, like the Norway model.
It clearly works
I agree
"...and watch services improve overnight...."
I presume the teachers unions will enjoy lots disgruntled sharp elbowed parents turning up at parents evening?
The education dept. would need to up the funding to take in the influx of children as well, it would be promised but i doubt much would appear?
@@MrBrock-kp5te it rather depends on who the Government is
@@MrBrock-kp5te They can be disgruntled as much as they want, if they cannot use a system responsibly then it should be taken away... that's what they constantly tell us.
If the beneficiary continues to live in the house then the IHT on that portion of the estate should be deferred until the property is sold. It would be a simple enough matter to have this recorded with the Land Registry.
That way, nobody has to move out to pay a tax bill just because their parents died cash poor, but the tax still comes due eventually.
Wouldn't that incentivize never selling the property?
@@fran_cusp_id so they never sell, is that a major problem?
Unless there is a single beneficiary, the property will likely be sold as the various heirs will prefer their share to a house that they occupy jointly with their siblings. So I doubt this would have a major impact on the housing market.
There already is exemptions if the property is your main residence, the "main residence nil rate band" This is currently £175,000 per person and applies if your estate is worth less than £2 million.
This means someone dying in 2023 could pass on assets worth up to £500,000 tax-free, if this included their residence passing to their descendants.
Hm…I responded again but my comment appears to have gone missing 🤔
@@rzrshrk7883 lol not at all for me (a student with zero assets). I was just thinking out loud really cuz as far as the gov is concerned, i'd imagine they'd want that money right away
The thing I don't understand is that many people state that their issue with inheritance tax is that they are paying tax on money that has already been taxed. Apart from the fact that that is frequently not the case, as mentioned with property accruing value, all of our money gets taxed more than once. Money gets taxed over and over constantly, it's not like there is new money being put into the system non-stop, it's the same money, for the most part being taxed over and over again. We don't complain about paying VAT, because we've already paid income tax or refuse to pay council tax or road tax, because we've already been taxed. Also it makes no sense for someone to be perfectly fine with paying tax on money they have had to work for, but be against paying tax on money they haven't had to work for.
In 1992 my family paid over eighty thousand pounds inheritance tax, my attitude at the time was and still is that my family were very fortunate to inherit a vast sum of money and that we could easily afford to pay the tax, also we all believe in the welfare state.
I’m against big daddy government being trusted to look after you.
@@anonomous8719so you are for big daddy corporations pulling your hair and spitting in your mouth instead? The absence of government is complete corporate tyranny doing whatever they want to their workers. The government will provide what is needed to keep corporations happy.. either the corporations will pay for it or the workers will.
@@anonomous8719 While government isn't perfect it's better than not having a safety net, I lost my job due to covid and I would have been homeless without even the currently dysfunctional universal credit system at least covering the rent while I got a new job. There are people unable to work who would otherwise fall into poverty or simply die without some level of the welfare state.
@@anonomous8719 and as someone who works in local government, i know it's unrealistic to trust people to be able to look after themselves in every contingency. People get sick, grow old, have mental health issues, end up as orphans, get abused, get divorced, just have bad luck or lets be honest, have been totally irresponsible and life has caught up with them. Please note that the last group has been the smallest group I have encountered and they usually have other issues. Hence a safety net in the benefit system and support for people who need it from the state ( at least what's left of it) funded by tax and NI contributions.
But I do agree we should all try not to be at the mercy of the "state" as the provisions are far from adequate and are being cut back everyday.
Same here. If you have to pay inheritance tax, be grateful you're inherenting enough to have to pay it.
It's simple really. Tories have their followers convinced that this tax break would apply to and benifit them as well, not realuzing that in fact their taxes will go up to pay for this as their tax brackets *aren't* getting adjustef for inflation and more of their income will now be taxed at higher rates to give their money to the people who least need it. Basically, the Tories know they're going to lose badly and this is a parting gift to themselves and their friends (who they expect to take care of them when they get kicked out)
Summed it up beautifully.
After 14 years of austerity he is going to reward the rich who it didn’t affect with a game changing inheritance tax cut that will secure the rich stay rich forever.
If you don't want to be poor get an education or marketable skill. Loose some weight, your lifestyle choices are clearly impacting your ability to contribute.
@@thegrandmuftiofwakanda Do you ever get fed up being wrong about everything, looking at your channel you are obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
@@david-pb4bi But I'm not wrong am I tubs.
@thegrandmuftiofwakanda Childish ad hominems, bravo on offering nothing to the debate as per 🙄
@@Cam-mo7gq
Apart from the valuable advice that if you don't want to be poor you should get an education or marketable skill, and look after your health, you mean?
You should thank me for this sage council. You need it.
In 2020-2021 tax year, only 4.3% of those that paid inheritance tax were from estates over 1 million pounds, ie the rich. The rest come from estates under that. Think about the average house price in London, most of them are over the inheritance tax limit. This isn't about taxing the super rich, it's about taxing the middle classes, and in London, house owning working classes.
There's 2 sides of a balance sheet. If they have a huge mortgage, the estate isn't taxed at the gross figure, it's the net
Like I said, it’s a scam. Inheritance tax is there to keep the middle class middle. Just when you think you might be building some generational wealth for your family, here’s 40% duty so your kids are back in square one.
A lot of people find that their hard earned wealth goes on care homes when they get old.
Love that caller from Notts
The answer to "Why" is that most people hope they'll hit it rich in their life and so they show sympathy to the already rich on the subject of taxes.
It's why many 'hopefuls' vote Tory in the UK & Republican in the U.S. They're on 30 grand a year, don't own a business & aren't an inventor or a property tycoon, but think that somehow in the next few years they'll be in a position where they have to worry about Higher Rate Tax and Inheritance loopholes. Madness.
So true.
Because some of us have aspirations and are not happy with mediocrity. Some of us hope some day we might hit it big. And if it does happen, it will have been thanks to hard work, being smart and taking risks - not thanks to any government handout.
So the last women's nephew was handed, for free, over half a million pounds worth of house and she's complaining? Am I getting that right?
Also, completely dismisses the single parents with three jobs who'll never get off the bottom rung because there isn't enough money in the council/education/affordable homes etc
I wish I could complain about getting over £500,000 🤦♂️🤡
@@sammakescode4071don’t have kids you can’t afford maybe ?.
@@Felix-risingPlenty of people have kids they can afford and then circumstances change. Beyond that, no one is saying they can't afford the children, they're saying they'll never have an estate to pass on as they never were able to get out of rented property.
I'm also perplexed as to why her sister was "working 3 jobs" to keep a 600K house... I'm thinking the house was a TAD too big for what she could actually afford???
I used to work in the inheritance tax office. Most wealthy estates do not pay inheritance tax, because their solicitors use the rules to write most of it off, via forms of business, farming, spousal relief. It matters not what a will may have said, the family and their solicitors tend to alter the will after the fact, in order to make use of these rules to dodge paying the tax that is due.
I guess I would also use such tax tricks to avoid taxes, but the government should think about the whole country not about me. Keep the estate tax
How do you see spousal relief as falling into the category of avoidance?
It's a reasonable deferral tool that automatically applies and is primarily designed to ensure the surviving spouse doesn't have to sell the family home and the full amount should then become payable on the successor's death.
@@roc7880Maybe reflect on what that says about you.
@@inBODwetrust13 Because I worked for 7 years in the Inheritance tax office and I saw first hand how estates used this to avoid paying tax that would otherwise have been due. The accountants/solicitors alter the will to leave EVERYTHING to the wife... then the wife simply distributes the estate to the rest of the family/friends etc, with no tax (which is illegal but there was nothing we could do to stop it).
And yet the average man is on here saying “well I didn’t earn that money, I deserve to be taxed on it”. It’s sickening.
to the guy whining in the comment section under almost every post on why he should pay inheritance tax. I want to make sure that you read it:
"Entitled to your taxes, because everybody else who is poor or not rich enough and therefore can't put money untaxable aside by buying homes and land has to pay taxes on 100% of their income and that twice and even three times while being forced to spend everything because people like you who inherited the income of their father who put his money untaxable aside by buying land and houses hands down his wealth to the son the son and the sons son. Sooo why should YOU be so entitled to have income that is not being taxed while everybody else has his income taxe twice and many times more??? BTW everybody else has to pay that inheritance tax, too. Just because you are wealthy enough to jump that bar you are suddenly exempt. How entitled can one be. If you don't want to pay that tax and profit from the services the taxes of everybody else provides, then eff off out of the country and don't scrounch social security, a safe environment for you kids to grow up, the safety to not being out to die if you fall on hard time, the safety to walk around unharmed in the night because there are police and lanterns. Just eff off. And let me guess YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION just because you dont like to hear the truth"
The thing that I think was missed in the discussion with the first caller is the fact that the richest people think it's normal for them to not pay tax - that they shouldn't pay tax. People with that social attitude, that's the constituency that the Tories are saying this for. It's not for the middle classes, it's for the landed gentry who want to rest assured that they will continue to benefit from their patronage to the Tories.
Absolutely amazing, bickering about paying inheritance tax, when the recipient received £560,000.00. The average cost of a 3 bed semi in Blackpool is around £166,000.00, there is a huge difference in prices throughout the country. My first house a 2 bed semi. bought in 1971 cost £1,650.00 a similar house down south east would have been around £50 to £70,000.00 then. I wish I could leave my family £560,000.00 after tax.
So you're saying you want to force the recipient to sell the home they live in and move to a cheaper part of the country all because their parent died?
@@DaveArray Someone above suggested that tax on the property you live in could be deferred. That would fix that issue.
Presumably they can take out a small mortgage to cover the tax. They still get an almost free house.
@@DarkDreams685 So they have to pay for a house their parent already paid for? The bank makes money and the already not-rich family loses out. nice.
@@jameskeaton1777 Agreed, that would be the right fix. Defer it until the house is sold or put up for rent.
That last call was priceless, even more so because I sort of understand but the nephew still inherited over half a million pounds by the sound of it.
This last caller is moaning that her nephew only got left £560,000 AND a house. The most I've ever had at one time was 25,000 - which my Dad left me, a man who spent most of his life working as a cab driver. And I'm still a tennant. I'd be kissing the person who left me over half a million and a house after tax. Her nephew has certainly got more of a leg-up than most people these days. He could buy another property, rent it out and not work another day in his life now (which is what he probably will)
No, a house worth £600k for which he had to pay £40k. If he'd sold it he'd have had £560k profit (though taxes taken off that too).
In the USA, a surprisingly small percentage of voters realize that only an incredibly small number of people are required to pay an estate tax.
People are just as thick here in the UK.
Calling people thick is juvenile and conceited. So stop it.
@@aleph8888 if the shoe fits...
In the US, about 40% of respondents believe they are, or will someday be, in the top 1% of income.
It's not about people being thick. It's about what people are told by the media and politicians, all of whom are in the pockets of the wealthy.@@garyh1572
Anyone who owned the house in London years ago is now worth a lot of money. So why should the government get paid again when you pass away when you want to give the house to your kids or family
Why taxes you mean?
Anyone who inherits a house in London has a gigantic economic advantage even if they have to remortgage a portion of the house.
living in a 3-4 bedroom detached house in midland, driving a Toyota with a sunroof is enough to me 🤗
A sunroof? You have a sunroof, sheer luxury.
Absolutely right. Worrying how greedy some are.
It’s not greed. It’s aspiration. It’s wanting a better lifestyle. Why should I pay more tax just because I’m willing to work harder to enjoy a nice lifestyle? I’m not judging people who are content with the basics. If that’s your aspiration, more power to you. But I shouldn’t have to finance your life choices with my taxes.
People don't realise that inheritance tax is only payable on estates worth more than £325,000. They think they will have to pay tax on the £2000 their dad left them. The media are happy to keep them in ignorance.
A lot of assets I.e houses are worth a lot more than 325,000.
@@twograntan9285The house isn’t included in the £325k. You get a £325k personal allowance plus £175k nil rated property allowance, so technically £500k per person, a couple (based on certain assumptions) can leave £1million without hitting the threshhold
Bingo - people need to keep saying that
I remember the "garden tax" was actually a large estate tax applicable to a tiny fraction of people
Keep telling the truth, and the rest falls away (hopefully)
There should be no inheritance tax is it anyone fault that their homes increased and why is it OK for Charlie and his cronnies to pay none? 325000 can't buy nothing in London so don't think 325 is anything wake up the only people it effects is working class people
@@wendystewart8526 it's not a "fault", it's a commitment to society. The most someone loses, in terms of golden handshakes for the next generation, is a small percentage. Get a grip
Most people living in London are in the inheritance tax bracket due to no choice of their own and house prices going up. My parents came here with nothing and worked their way up made sacrifice to leave an inheritance for their children which is now going to be taxed at 40% how is that fair and why do we have this ridiculous tax? Charles who is worth billions didn't have to pay it? Ridiculous and it been more or less 20 years from since they raised the threshold why hasn't it increased to match the house prices? The only people it effects is poor working class people it's ridiculous
Already disliked him but to excuse bill gates and sorros just shows what side job is batting for.
I saved and scraped for years to buy a house, why can’t I give that property to whoever I want, no one is selling anything so there is no windfall. The tax has been paid on that money.
Imagine being annoyed that someone got a 600K inheritance, setting them up for life, but had to pay 40K in tax
I think for them it was the principle. If we had no capital gains exclusion on lived in property (say at a lower rate that worked out comparable to the bulk of the inheritance tax threshold) I don't think she would feel the same.
It "feels" more natural to tax an asset that appreciated than someones estate left to loved ones upon death.
The 40k he paid on tax will be nothing in 10 years time. When that 600k house is worth a million.
I'd be pretty annoyed tbh. 40k is a big chunk of cash to me. Nearly twice what I earn in a year.
Imagine losing both parents when you`re young..........
@@Explicitly-CJ but getting 600k! unless your parents are worth a million or over you wont pay a penny.
Give your children what you can while you're alive if possible without leaving yourself short.
You can only give them £3000 a year combined
if you live for another seven years, you can give away as much as you like. @@manni192
You can give as much as you like and pay no tax so long as you live for 7 years
I'd be really disappointed if my kid feels hard done by, collecting half a million for nothing.
Please let people talk.
Greedy rich regular Tory voters for ya..........
This question was asked in the movie sequel of Wall St.
The answer given by the stockbroker was chilling, he answered with one word...MORE!😨
You maintain the building, and you pay council tax for it on the past 40-50 years, Social housing you don't have to pay for maintaining.
But you don't own the house
In Australia there is no inheritance tax and that plus a host of additional tax loopholes that only benefit the wealthy allows some of the richest individuals to pay no tax at all. Tax deductions for family trusts, capital gains, negative gearing, franking credits etc and a host of other deductions amount to billions of dollars that should be collected and spent on services that benefit the country. But my only grumble is if you look at how governments waste the taxes they’ve collected why give them more to waste. There’s a fundamental issue with our political system that comprehensive accountability of government spending is missing as there are no consequences other then loosing power for misuse of public funds. There needs to be significant consequences for politicians and public servants who waste our money and that’s never going to happen.
He’s doing it for himself
Whenever I hear people like the last caller, I wonder what I'm completely missing in life. I'm not so daft to assume that I know everything or that I'm always right, but to hear someone listen to reason and still argue against it always baffles me.
The nephew was given (for doing nothing) half a million pounds. Not a bad outcome.
in these days of levelling up maybe the royals should pay their way and pay inheritance tax and join the rest of us tax payers
To be fair to the royals, nobody that rich pays any Inheritance tax. It's only for the wealthy, not the super rich.
Death and Taxes! You can't avoid either, living or dead.
Just because it might unearned income for the recipient doesn't mean it was untaxed income for the the person that amassed it.
A one bedroom flat in London is in the region of £500,000 in a semi reasonable area.
Most working or middle class people that bought property in London have seen gains that would make youe eyes water, however it's not an income for them, it's a roof over their head.
Even when you try to downsize to realise some gain, new properties are so dear that you're better off staying where you are because you will have to live in a shoebox in comparison.
I guarantee that James and his accountants have made the full use of tax exemptions and aviodance schemes for his own wealth.
When he talks about the 4% he's not talking about the uber rich, he's talking about those that haven't managed their estates like the really wealthy people that have the means to avoid this tax.
I completely agree with the first guy. As an only child to successful, hard working and lucky (to be born when they were) parents and someone who, when my parents die, will pay a very hefty chunk of inheritance tax. I have no problem with the concept of inheritance tax and the tories will not win my vote with their proposed changes. If properties stagnate and don't increase then I don't think it is right for my children to pay tax on something I have already paid tax for but I agree with the basic principle.
However, my issue with inheritance tax is that for such a high percentage, it raises so little for the exchequer, something like £4b a year I believe. This is because anyone with just a bit more money than my parents' can turn their estates into trust funds and businesses, or pay financial advisors who help them to transfer ownership of homes long enough before they die to avoid the inheritance tax threshold.
I don't think it is fair that I will pay potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds of inheritance tax, but king Charles last year inherited hundreds of millions of pounds from his mum and didn't pay a penny. If and when they are elected, rather than just reestablishing the old system, Labour need to close the loopholes including around capital gains and trust funds and increase the taxation on estates that have been taken out of the inheritance tax calculations.
Why are you exclusively comparing yourself to the super rich but not to people poorer than you?
"On the gravestone of capitalism it will read: too much was not enough." Volker Pispers, German satirist
In the gravestone of socialism it will read “I ate my milking cow and I have no more”.
When my grandparents died house was valued at £640,000 with assets totalling £800,000 (threshold was £700,000 then) for 2 siblings. My mum waited just over a year to drag the selling process out and sold it s Or £80,000 more which covered the tax pretty much
Not sure this is correct as one cannot inherit the estate until the IHT bill has been paid. Mum must have paid the amount due and then held onto the house.
So the situation here James is that a lot of people think they will be hit by the tax, even though in reality they will not.
Sometimes a few loud voices make the perception of reality disproportionate to it's real counterpart.
It's emotive because for most people IHT is falling on a home. It's not just an asset or property. The caller does not explain if her nephew had to sell the house to pay the tax. That's the bit that hurts and feels unfair. I don't suppose regular people have that kind of cash sitting around in order to keep a family home.
I say dont tax main residences at all unless the inheritors sell it and liquidise the increased value.
The final caller in this clip is fascinating. She, presumably, accepts that she goes out to work and earns a wage which she pays tax on, subject to her tax free allowance, but can't grasp the same concept that she can inherit an estate and have to pay tax on that , again subject to her tax free allowance. Why do people seemingly accept that they have to pay tax on money they earn but not on money they are gifted through inheritance?
The biggest problem in the world right now is accountability. People need to be held to account and punished relative to their means.
James knows full well that the largest estates pay absolutely no IHT (and very little income tax) as it is usually off-shored and in trust.
We are not talking about the top 4%, it's the upper middle - people who have worked for money and done well.
Generational wealth is protected. Forcing the top of the middle to sell their properties (cash can go into evasion schemes) is just moving the deckchairs.
Perfectly summed up but almost missed at 16:32 - Caller: “It’s an emotion” 👏
I'm no economic expert and far from wealthy enough to worry about inheritance tax but if we as a country can't find the money to pay dr's, nurses and paramedics more money so that we can attract more people into the nhs and keep people from leaving why cut any tax at the moment
Cause there’s an election coming up and they’re pretending to pay you to vote for them.
King charles payed none so why should anyone else what do you have to say to that
Much of the value of anyone's final estate is the increase in value of their property through general inflation over many years. This has NEVER been taxed as income until someone dies, and even then it is paid by the deceased NOT the inheritors.
The problem with that method of thinking is that the increase in value is based on monetary terms not an increase in value in real terms.
@@ricardosmythe2548 - yes, but as the deceased is not seeking to replace like with like it is a fair tax to pay. It is only when you consider the viewpoint of the inheritors does it become an issue - but there again, they are not paying the tax, the deceased is.
@@trevormj I wouldnt agree. The tax is placed upon the inheritance that belongs to the next of kin therefore its the next of kin who is being taxed. Dead men can't own anything. The tax is also layed out differently depending on if its a partner or children inheriting which futher proves this point. The premise of capital gains should be based on real growth in value not monetary value which is in constant decline
What if you live in your parents house, its worth 600k, its been the family home for decades, and your parents die? Suddenly you have to pay 40k which you don't have or be forced to sell up and buy another house. When she said the system should be means tested, this is what she meant! Inheritance tax should not apply on the sole home to an inheritor who does not have the financials to pay it off and currently lives there.
The inheritance doesn't belong to the next of kin until the executor has enacted the will, which is after debts are settled.
2nd caller is a legend. Agree with him 100%
Inheritance Tax is a way to redistribute wealth from those who have passed away to everyone that is alive, rather than just the relatives of those that were lucky enough to accrue wealth. Reducing it simply entrenches further inequality of opportunity.
I live in an area of the south where a gentleman my family know bought a House for 60 thousand in the 70's. In 2023 it's around 800,000...
That's due to the lack of house building over the years forcing prices up. I personally think that's deliberate so house prices rise year on year meaning more people pay the tax.lets be honest in twenty years time everyone who owns a house there children Will have to pay it when they die.imagine how much house prices will be in fifty years young children growing up now are going to be debt ridden by this tax
Why is it we’re ok with massive, reckless government spending, Over bloated bureaucracy’s, government waste and the answer to these issues is always……more tax. Reminds me of the saying, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
This would be a really powerful statement if it wasn't for the fact this conversation is being instigated on the back of news that inheritance tax is being cut
It's because the entire property market ( income/average house price ratio) has gone completely insane.
The last caller is ridiculous. Jame’s is absolutely right.
Although she couldn't articulate it, she felt the injustice that some are forced to sell the family home if a parent dies simply because the government decides that due to the estimated value you need to deliver £40k you don't have.
Alternatively if the house had a slightly lower estimated value at the time of death, you would be allowed to keep the family in the house.
We need to pay tax to have the publicly provided things we need (e.g. NHS, schools, roads, water - oh sorry, the last one is optional, apparently). I’d rather pay a chunk of it after I’m dead.
The problem is the £325,00 threshold has not been raised for years! Fiscal drag!!!
This tax is not about the wealthy, it affects virtually every homeowner and penalises single parents.
This tax is promoting reckless spending and not taking responsibility for your own housing i.e. should I retire early, spend all that I have saved and get the government to house me!!!!
I can't believe people want to keep this tax, what do they think the government spends it on? It's not the NHS!
It does not affect virtually every homeowner. You completely misunderstand the rules.
@@SamEdwards-qy5im OK try and fine a family house in the south east for less than £325k. I fully understand the rules and allowances. The £1m stated assumes 2 parents and you leave the estate to your children, otherwise the threshold is £325k.
That woman towards the end clearly never had any money before and so having to pay 40k Tax just felt like an outrageous amount
Forget the 550k clear bills they got.
The gentleman who inherited 560'000, after having to pay 40'000 could pop that money in a high interest account and in less than two years have that 40'000 back and then some. It must be tough for him.
And then pay tax again on the interest he’s earned.
The answer isn’t to keep taxing people to death.
The dumbing down and desire of some to keep people from being successful or aspiring to be better is ridiculous.
Lefties won’t be happy until we’re all Muslim and living on the dole.
Then when he dies and he has to get rid of his house to his kids it’s taxed again. It goes on and on
Yes but in less than two years inflation will reduce the overall value by £50,000!
@@mainairmik996 And rightly so. He never earned that money, his kids will not earn that money, and so none of them have been/will be taxed on it as income. Anyone who actually worked and made £560,000 would pay tax on their earnings, so the man is getting free money, in other words 'income', and should pay tax on it. As should his kids when they inherit further down the line. Everyone pays income tax when they acrue money. Inheritance tax is just a different type of income tax.
@@Gisburne2000what have the government done to earn the taxes on that money?
The tax needs to be a percentage of the appreciation of the property, perhaps adjusted by length of property ownership
I don't think an adjustment for the length of property ownership would work. Many people don't stay in the same house for most of their lives. If you sell up and move house two years before you die, for example, your new (final) property will not have had time to appreciate in value anywhere near as much as a property bought at 1980s prices and in which you lived for 40 years. All your previous properties would have appreciated, getting you to the point where you could afford your final house, at current prices, and it would be impossible to take all your other house moves, sales, appreciations, etc, into account.
No it doesn't. It should be on the value of the estate. Putting it solely on property would have consequences as people game the system. Suppose if it took off and cash was stripped from property via loans that were never paid then housing could become less valuable/more affordable..... As a renter I take it all back and agree to your reform.
King Charles avoided the 40% inheritance tax on the £400 MILLION his mummy ( Greedy Betty) left him in her will. One law for them, another for the subjugated pleb rest. 😢
I'm not opposed to the idea of an inheritance tax. I'm all for it. IF, and only if, that money is being spent wisely by the government - which is not happening. It's not surprising that citizens in countries where their government offers some semblance of competence, I.e. the Nordics, Singapore, etc, are actually in favour of such a tax. But it's a shame, we're in Britain. The inheritance taxes collected earlier this century were no doubt spaffed on an over-budgeted, pointless, incomplete HS2.
Maybe because people believe if you've already paid tax you shouldn't have to pay it again when you die
Almost every exchange of money is taxed. This is an exchange of money and should be taxed.
I pay tax when I buy food and drink with my already taxed money.
You aren't paying it. You're dead. Your inheritants are paying it on the enormous sum of money they received.
dead people dont feel pain of paying tax though do they
@@AJ-xv7ohsometimes not that enormous.
I think a lot of people don’t oppose it simply because they don’t understand it, they just don’t realise that the large majority of people don’t pay it and will never pay it. They just hear “tax” and think it just should be lower
Do those 37% realise that they are having to pay more tax in order to give the 4% a tax free lump sum they never earned? That 4% getting even richer must add at least 2-3% onto the basic rate of tax.
No they don't, a fool and their money are easily parted.
Your knowledge of the tax system leaves a lot to be desired. Where are you adding the 2-3% on from and how did you come to that percentage
Have you noticed a tax increase as a man, now women no longer have to pay VAT on tampons. You must be livid with those women
The thing that people forget here is that the estate is NOT about the person who died but about the person inheriting - it is unearned income and actually has a large personal allowance on it. So why shouldn't it be taxed? Is it fair that someone worked their whole lives - sometimes more than one job at a time - to rent a flat or house and never got to leave anything to anyone whereas someone else worked their whole lives - sometimes more than one job at a time - and got to leave a whole house to someone? Most people in the UK will never have to pay inheritance tax anyway but this government are bigging it up as an issue so that they can "help" people "keep more of their money". Grr.
He lost me when he championed Bill Gates and George Soros
He needs to learn more about Bill Gates greed.
To hear someone say he did it for the love of the work made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.
Home owners don’t make the house prices go up , so shouldn’t be penalised when inheriting the property
By that logic they shouldn't get the extra value of the house
Surely if again doesn't count then aloss wouldn't. Makes you wonder what point of buying a house.
Do taxes confuse you,?
@@NeilCWCampbell Explain that to those who suffered from negative equity when their homes became worth less than their mortgages through actions out of their control.
@@misimiki you would need to take this up with Keith lad 🤣🤣
Perhaps diving into a conversation halfway not the smartest thing.
Let me guess brexit voter right 👍👍
@@NeilCWCampbell 🤣🤣Try guessing again.
@@misimiki why? Which particular bit of cheque book eugenics are you defending be specific 🤣
Why is the concept of ‘what have i done to earn that’, not equally applied to the benefits system, the culture of entitlement and the grossly unproductive and inefficient public services….
"she only had enough to bury her and a house [worth over half a million]"
Her issue isn't that she was poor, her issue is that all her money was in a house, if she wanted more cash, she should have sold it and downsized _like literally everyone else in such situations_
in trusts the rich trust... inheritance tax is dodged by the 1% and has been for generations, smoke and mirrors
Caller who says ...what have l done to earn this? Brilliant...UK is so unjust .
What really annoys me about this conversation as a whole is, in the rare case that someone with a shedload of inherited wealth spends money and doesn't just shove it offshore, what they are actually spending their money on.
When you break this question down, you have to consider that they have all this money but they also inherit huge houses, cars and other assets, which immediately negates the need to purchase any of those- but as anyone with an iota of fiscal awareness understands, the worst thing you can do with an enormous pile of capital is just let it sit there, so what is done with it? It's invested. What's it invested in? Assets with a high rate of return over several decades that also have inelastic demand.
What asset do we all know of that hits all of these criteria and that there's currently an enormous crisis revolving? That's right, it's HOUSES.
This is the reason trickle down economics is BS.
Imagine wanting to give this government another penny
If this phone in tells you one thing it's that we need to bring down property prices
Because it’s tantamount to communism
You know nothing of communism. (Or capitalism, socialism, marxism or whatever you think of next).
I am just totally against money that has already been taxed again and again and again, there should be a ceiling.
The misguided emotive ignorance about inheritance tax is matched only by the misguided emotive ignorance about Brexit…
Your certainly right there... 🙄
Misguided emotive ignorance is what the Government and it's client media rely upon.
Brilliant.
As counterintuitive as it seems, your real estate portfolio gaining value is indeed enrichment, but your own house gaining value in fact isn't.
Your hovel bought for X now being worth 10 times X, just means that you have to immobilize 10 times as much capital to produce the same housing services for your own benefice. That's neutralized as long as you don't sell it or transmit it to your children, because your capital has increased correspondingly, but it bites as soon as you do.
If your children inherit the hovel when you die and keep living in it, they have to pay the inheritance tax on 10.X instead of X out of their pocket to keep the same level of housing service; or they can sell it and buy a (10.X - inheritance tax on 10.X) worth hovel and accept the corresponding y% decrease of the housing service they enjoy.
If the prices of real estate have grown more quickly than their salary, it made them poorer.
The same way rents growing more rapidly than salaries makes tenants poorer.
I think perhaps what was left out of the conversation was that when the caller's sister worked 3 jobs the house wasnt worth that much. So thats understandable that the suster is upset because she would have seen what it took for her sister to keep her house.
She made 500K on a house she bought 60K in 1983. Isn't that enough money? There are people today who work as much as she did, and who will not even get a pension when they will retire!!!
@@daviddupond8626 She didnt make anything. She never got to enjoy the '500k' you speak of. You might say "sell it and buy cheaper" but ALL HOUSES GO UP IN PRICES even the cheap ones so she would have had to buy a much worse house and had a worse place to live and she still could not enjoy the '500k she made'. Think before you type.
@@DaveArray Hope you enjoyed Clockwork Orange in your youth because it will soon become reality, thanks to you generation.
My parents have worked hard all their life, and paid tax throughout. 325k isn't a huge amount these days, why shouldn't they be able to leave it in their will without having to pay tax again.
The person who inherit it didn't earn it. £325k is a huge amount of money, it's about 13 X the annual average salary in the UK
And why should the government have any of it?
@@oakie007 same reason you get taxed in the first place. To pay for things that are used by society, particularly social care which is a huge burden on tax payers and is only likely to get worse
"It's not fair, my sister worked hard all her life!"
Yeah, and managed at age 56 to die and leave her only child over half a million quid after tax! Such injustice!
She earned that money. Why fo people think rich get their money from the trees?
@@trextor23 she did earn it. Her child didn't.
@@david1731048 it's in the family. The family has a right to that money. If I have a home I don't want it to go to anyone but my children after me. You think we can take things to our graves?
@@trextor23she got her money (ie the asset value of the house) from the house increasing by over half a million in value from when it was purchased in the early 1980s.
What?? Rational callers? What's going on???;😂😂😂 crazy world...
This shouldn't be any concern to those who accumulated the wealth, because they'll be dead. It's people who've done nothing to deserve the money, but for being named in a last will and testament who selfishly whinge over paying inheritance tax.
James and callers rationale on the value of property is flawed.. The $30k home bought back in the 80's is worth exactly the same amount today relative to the size of the economy and relative to inflation.. Just because it's worth $250+k today does not mean you have made any money.. if anything you have lost some money as the building is older, may require repairs and has depreciated in value.. that 250k today may be a different dollar figure but has the same value as 30k did back in the 80's So any tax the government charge you on that home when you pass away and leave it to your kids is completely immoral and just pure theft on the part of the government..
Can’t believe that guy can’t keep the full £600,000 when he’s worked so hard all his life… I mean when his auntie worked so hard all her life.
Inheritance tax. It’s already been taxed at least over and over already. You paid tax when you earned it, paid another if you put it into savings. Taxed on interest. If you invest it and then withdraw it you are taxed again. I think we the people should keep our inheritance money tax free. we will never get on.