Used car from a dealership still includes full VAT?

JimmyP

dfk41 Wow. Way to be really boring 😂

JimmyP

dfk41 I reckon you should respond to what I’m saying here. Rather than avoiding the question 🤔

dfk41

JimmyP Jimmy….you really do not know me! I have never avoided a confrontation in my life, and god only knows that I have had my share! I do not understand the point that you are trying to make. I might be thick or a generation away from you, so, please do not speak in riddles and spit it out

HarveyMushman

@JimmyP

Are you saying ditch inheritance or inheritance tax?

JimmyP

HarveyMushman Both. Everything goes to the state.

JimmyP

dfk41 I’m not speaking in riddles. My suggestion is to abolish inheritance tax. Everything goes to the state upon death. As I said originally 🙂👍

Adrianmsmith

I wish i had this “inheritance problem” to worry about!!

If anyone is struggling with a will and needs to offload their fortune…… my details are…… 🥰

dfk41

Adrianmsmith In my working life as a specialist in providing additional income in retirement I came accross so many people with wealthy parents. Now, it is not their fault and I wish them all the best but I can say of 10 families this applied to, 5 would produce children who underachieved, a couple who were average, and possibly three who shared their parents values and went on to carry the flag.
One of my best friends, his parents divorced in the 70’s. He inherited two beautiful houses in one of the most desirable parts of the north east. Career wise he worked in a department store, then became an HGV driver, then a driving instructor then his father died.
I do not begrudge him anything but I can tell you that when you retire and look back over your life those who arrived at retirement by their own means, then life is just that little bit sweeter

DavecUK

They tax your earnings, they tax your purchases, they tax house ownership, they tax when you buy and sell it, you pay for it all with money that’s already been taxed. then when you die, they tax it yet again, plus they tax you to sell it to pay the taxes due.. It’s a nonsense.

In a sense, they have taxed a lifetimes income a second time….so one wonders what the real lifetime tax rate actually is and I suspect it’s 60% or more.

JimmyP

dfk41 Jeez, what a horrible way to judge others. You should be ashamed of yourself.

HarveyMushman

@dfk41

I’ve seen similar. A previous neighbour of mine, guy in his 30s, basically got given enough to buy a £350k house which he subsequently let out, the income from which funded constant backpacking and he didn’t really have to work.

Whilst there were times I envied his position, I don’t think knowing it was all handed to me would sit well with me compared to knowing I’d worked hard for what I have. There’s a huge sense of pride achieving financial milestones that you’ve reached through work that isn’t the same with handouts.

This will be unpopular but the one thing that isn’t taxed, and is making people wealthy surely more than many other means is profits on the sale of a main residence.

I have absolutely no disdain for any wealth generated from hard work, I also don’t really think inheritance that’s a product of hard work should be taxed (a second time). But people are making 6-figures p/a tax free from sitting in a house. No other short-med term asset gains even close in comparison are untaxed.

A friend of mine bought a maisonette in East London in 2012 for about £400k. Sold in 2021 for £1.2 million. That’s £800,000 tax free for effectively just living in a house. She could stick that in the S&P500 and never have to work again. My in-laws neighbors made £100k in a year on a house they bought in a popular place and sold a year later. Also untaxed.

Again, unpopular opinion and obviously most homeowners would likely reject such a proposal but I think there could be benefits to CGT on main residences. Perhaps above a certain threshold, and on a sliding scale based on time spent living somewhere so the longer you’ve lived somewhere the less you’re taxed since prices inevitably rise over time to some degree.

We’re constantly told houses should be a home, not an investment, yet homes have typically been the best investment you can make in the last 10 years by an enormous margin.

JimmyP

HarveyMushman I think this supports my position. If everything goes to the state upon death then wealth can be redistributed 🙂👍

DavecUK

JimmyP Jeez, what a horrible way to judge others. You should be ashamed of yourself.

He wasn’t judging anyone and has nothing to be ashamed about….but you seem to be judging him in a horrible way, rather Ironic.

JimmyP

DavecUK Wow. I’m disappointed with you here buddy 🫤

dfk41

JimmyP People are not rising as much to your goading eh Jimmy? You seem to forget, you are telling us your opinion, that is all. I do not have to agree with your opinion, or vice versa but we are both able to hold our opinions whether we agree with others or not.

DavecUK

JimmyP Wow. I’m disappointed with you here buddy 🫤

Well at least it’s only once, you have disappointed me many times.

CoffeePhilE

MediumRoastSteam Understood. I read your comment literally, that if there’s no will, then it goes to the royal family - which is not quite what happens. For example, if I die tomorrow and I have no will, it will go to my wife and then to my children. I don’t need to necessarily have a will.

Ultimately, it doesn’t go to the royal family at all. It goes to the “Crown”, which isn’t quite the same, and even that, only temporarily.

The issue is that property, under UK law, has to belong (i.e. be ‘vested’ in) an identifiable person, though that ‘person’ can be a legal person, like a company, rather than just a flash and blood person. Any property without such an identifiable owner, with a few trivial exceptions, will eventually end up with the Crown. Inheritances with no beneficiaries is just a very large example.

Those funds, and/or non-money assets are them administered by the Treasury solicitors, partly because there’s a lengthy period (12 years, if I remember correctly) when unidentified beneficiaries can still come forward and make a claim.

But eventually, unclaimed funds are distributed by the Treasury solicitors (BVD) among several charities for charitable purposes.

So yes, the money goes to the “Crown” in that someone has to administer property that can’t be traced to anyone else, but it doesn’t go to the royal family. It is not for their use, they don’t get to benefit from it and don’t determine where the funds are eventually used.

The “Crown”, if you like, is a legal nicety for a bunch of government solicitors, administering a fund that could just as well be a company owned by the government, but it’s not surprising it’s done this way when a large chunk of our legal system is based on traditions embedded in 1000 years and more of us being a monarchy. Whether we should be or not is a whole different argument, but the money from unclaimed inheritances goes to the royal family only in a similar way to the donations to a charity being administered by those running the charity, but the charity officials don’t (legally) get to benefit from those charity funds … other than salaries, etc. Though there have been, allegedly, more than a few outrageous liberties allegedly taken in recent years with some ‘charity’ funds. More than that I don’t feel like saying, on account of not wanting to risk gettig my ass sued.

« Previous Page