| Topic: Jack Charlton’s son facing a £200,000 inheritance tax |
|---|
| 21. Author: hurricane_jimmy Date: Sun 2nd Aug 2026. 14:35 Just crazy that HMRC are desperate to get their cut on something like a medal. I`m quite lucky in that I`m a dual national and Sweden has no inheritance tax, so I can take advantage of that. Dad and Sister are both lawyers and the best way to avoid is to place things in trusts or gift them to your children before death. Reply |
| 22. Author: ipswichpar Date: Sun 2nd Aug 2026. 16:33 LochgellyAlbert, Sun 2 Aug 14:31 Technically it does, but if you leave your house to kids or grandkids, there is a nil-rate applied to the next £175k per part of a couple which means it is tax free for the first 500k for a single person or 1m for a married couple. Reply |
| 23. Author: LochgellyAlbert Date: Sun 2nd Aug 2026. 18:13 ipswichpar, Sun 2 Aug 16:33 Is that after your Care Home fees are deducted?😡 Reply |
| 24. Author: ipswichpar Date: Sun 2nd Aug 2026. 22:17 At this point we seem to get into a daft circular argument. If we want a national care service that`s equivalent to the health service. It is going to cost money to provide. So the model can charge folk for a weekly usage. Some people will have lower cost if they don`t need it or if they die relatively early. Or everybody can pay into a pot either as part of general taxation or as a tax on estate after death. Frankly, it is bonkers to expect that everything will be free without it having to be paid for. The same people would be complaining if they didn`t have a triple lock pension, they weren`t getting nice new disability cars and free NHS health care. This money doesn`t grow on trees, and the younger generation that have got poorer pensions and can`t afford a place to live will be paying to cover care for generally asset rich folk which is clearly not right. The sooner we have this national debate and folk take the time to actually understand the economics the better. There are of course options to a fully free and fully funded care service (which will cost many tens of billions per annum) which are cheaper, for example charging until the value of an individuals assets but to a higher cut off at which point it gets cheaper or becomes free. Reply |
| 25. Author: jake89 Date: Mon 3rd Aug 2026. 08:17 We`re not getting a national care service in Scotland. Some guy called Anas Sarwar and his party objected to it. Not sure what happened to that guy... The problem with IHT is it typically hits the middle. The people with less don`t hit the threshold, the people with most find loopholes. Reply |
| 26. Author: Andrew283 Date: Mon 3rd Aug 2026. 08:38 LochgellyAlbert, Sun 2 Aug 18:13 Sorry, but I refuse to pay for a wealthy pensioner to be cared for. Reply |
| 27. Author: The One Who Knocks Date: Mon 3rd Aug 2026. 10:31 What about a wealthy middle aged person who has cancer or has difficulty living without a degree of care after a stroke? And although my eyes were open They just might as well be closed Reply |
| 28. Author: jake89 Date: Mon 3rd Aug 2026. 13:38 Andrew283, Mon 3 Aug 08:38 But you do (assuming you work). Because there are so many who have no or little money to fund their care as they get older, it falls to the taxpayer to cover it. Reply |
| 29. Author: ipswichpar Date: Mon 3rd Aug 2026. 14:08 The older I get, the more appealing George Best`s financial advice sounds. Reply |
| 30. Author: NMCmassive Date: Tue 4th Aug 2026. 23:27 I actually think it’s a fair point to “not pay for a wealthy pensioner” The whole point of a welfare system is to help those that require help. It’ll feel harsh on those that are using the value of their house or savings but unless we say right we’re all going to pay more so nobody regardless of their finances has pay then there has to be a cut off somewhere. BTW it’s not just people who would be considered wealthy, they’ll take a few grand if that’s what you’ve got. COYP Reply |
| 31. Author: Dandy Warhol Date: Wed 5th Aug 2026. 15:38 Wotsit, Sun 2 Aug 11:27 So Mr Contrary, why should i give my hard earned to ramdoms? I don`t wanna go down like disco. Reply |
| 32. Author: DBP Date: Wed 5th Aug 2026. 18:57 Wotsit What is the ideological argument in favour of mollycoddling the offspring of some people because they happened to have competent parents? Doesn`t inherited wealth create weak people who don`t know the value of hard work because they know they`ll be handed everything on a plate through the work of others? So if we’re making sweeping generalisations, I’ll say that everyone on benefits are feckless, lazy wasters who could all go out to work if they so wished… but then what’s the incentive if they just get handouts from people who’ve actually done something? Reply |
| 33. Author: answer Date: Wed 5th Aug 2026. 19:16 DBP, Wed 5 Aug 18:57 That is an interesting comparison. Reply |
| 34. Author: jake89 Date: Wed 5th Aug 2026. 23:00 The current set up is your chosen benefactor(s) inherit assets under £500k with no tax or £1m if it`s been a married couple. Anything above that is taxed at 40%. So for most people a house would need to be valued at over £650k before any IHT would be due. Nowadays it`s not unfeasible that some pretty average houses could be hitting that. However, you could be paying the property IHT with other assets if need be so the whole "got to sell the family home" but is a bit much. Plus what would you be doing with the house anyway given you`d be living elsewhere already in most cases. The care home fees are different. People need to get out their head that care should be free. It`s not and costs around £2k per person, per week. If a family is concerned about losing all the money to care fees then they need to think ahead and transfer ownership of assets in good time, or choose to pay for care at home, which can work out cheaper. Alternatively, care for the loved one themselves. My understanding is care fees for council places only apply to those with more than £25k in the bank. Inheritance is always an odd one. Most people in their life might inherit a few grand. Maybe a house if they`re lucky, but that`ll need split between siblings etc. I expect the issue many have is those who inherit enormous estates. I`m a bit divided on this as while I think people should make their own way in this world, it`s not that person`s fault that they got money and someone raised by a single parent in a council scheme didn`t. Having a "hard" start in life doesn`t make you a better person. It`s what you do with the hand you`re dealt, though I think the parents have a lot of sway there. I can see it within my own family where someone was given every opportunity to succeed but actually those safety nets have been a curse. It really comes down to individual circumstances rather than toffee nosed git only did well because of daddy`s money while poor boy done good is a superstar. What happens with the boy with the rich daddy loses the business or the children of the poor boy done good inherit his money? Role reversal? Reply |