[Politics] Labour Party meltdown incoming.......

[nevergoagain]

And dividends are for shareholders, not workers.

The worker is also the shareholder, it's just a different way to remunerate instead of PAYE. Anyway we're pointlessly arguing about semantics, taxes will be going up in one way or the other we're being side-tracked as to what constitutes a worker and/or a working persons tax so shall leave it at that.

 

[Baldseagull]

All quite complex! Makes PAYE a godsend really.

I've often wondered how some small businesses (shops) round here provide a living for their owners, as the turnover isn't huge.

You don't have to operate a business as Limited company, there are simpler structures. The main benefit of a Limited Company is that liabilities are limited to the company, I.e. the company can go bust and owe money, but no one can come after you personally for the money, unless you had used a personal asset as security for a loan.

 

[Baldseagull]

It's absolutely nonsense that it's not a tax on the living.
The dead cannot pay from the afterlife, so the living must do so.

But it wasn't their money, it was the deceased persons money.

 

[Baldseagull]

The worker is also the shareholder, it's just a different way to remunerate instead of PAYE. Anyway we're pointlessly arguing about semantics, taxes will be going up in one way or the other we're being side-tracked as to what constitutes a worker and/or a working persons tax so shall leave it at that.

A shareholder might be a worker, or have nothing to do with the day to day operations, it honestly was not in my mind as a tax that was covered by the Labour promise.

 

[Is it PotG?]

But it wasn't their money, it was the deceased persons money.

Makes no odds 'squire, it's a tax that a living person has to pay.

 

[Baldseagull]

Makes no odds 'squire, it's a tax that a living person has to pay.

It isn't, other than a human has to complete the paperwork and transfer the funds, but the main point is, did you really think IHT was a tax that was included in Labour's "no tax increases on working people"?

 

[Me Atome]

But it wasn't their money, it was the deceased persons money.

Yes, it was the deceased person's money. After he dies it becomes the money owned by whoever he left it to. Just like the house he owned or the car he owned. Was is the key word in your statement.

 

[rippleman]

You don't have to operate a business as Limited company, there are simpler structures. The main benefit of a Limited Company is that liabilities are limited to the company, I.e. the company can go bust and owe money, but no one can come after you personally for the money, unless you had used a personal asset as security for a loan.

Or unless you make yourself a "preferential creditor" ie continue to pay yourself (or otherwise draw money from the company) instead of paying the company's debts.

 

[rippleman]

Makes no odds 'squire, it's a tax that a living person has to pay.

You're not really that daft are you?

Of course "a person" ie the Executor has to physically pay IHT to HMRC from the monies realised from the deceased's Estate. Yes, the Executor is a living person but not sure how you have concluded that it is the Executor's money that is being paid.

An Executor will very often be a solicitor who won't be a beneficiary under the Will.

Try looking at it this way. I will give you £100K which you have never worked for, never earnt. This is on condition you immediately give me £40K back. You end up getting £60K for doing nothing.

Has that made it easier to follow?

 

[Is it PotG?]

You're not really that daft are you?

Of course "a person" ie the Executor has to physically pay IHT to HMRC from the monies realised from the deceased's Estate. Yes, the Executor is a living person but not sure how you have concluded that it is the Executor's money that is being paid.

An Executor will very often be a solicitor who won't be a beneficiary under the Will.

Try looking at it this way. I will give you £100K which you have never worked for, never earnt. This is on condition you immediately give me £40K back. You end up getting £60K for doing nothing.

Has that made it easier to follow?

I think bite size chunks might help.

Does someone pay the bill?

 

[nevergoagain]

You're not really that daft are you?

Of course "a person" ie the Executor has to physically pay IHT to HMRC from the monies realised from the deceased's Estate. Yes, the Executor is a living person but not sure how you have concluded that it is the Executor's money that is being paid.

An Executor will very often be a solicitor who won't be a beneficiary under the Will.

Try looking at it this way. I will give you £100K which you have never worked for, never earnt. This is on condition you immediately give me £40K back. You end up getting £60K for doing nothing.

Has that made it easier to follow?

Points of view again isn't it. Same situation my dad leaves me £100k in his will, I only receive £60k so I've been "taxed" 40%. Whether I've earned it or not is immaterial, that's a moralistic point of view, but like it or not between my father leaving me £100k and me receiving it I've been taxed £40k. It's just semantics again we're arguing a point where it really doesn't matter who the taxee is be it a logical estate or a real person, in the end the result is the same and the treasury gets it's money.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Points of view again isn't it. Same situation my dad leaves me £100k in his will, I only receive £60k so I've been "taxed" 40%. Whether I've earned it or not is immaterial, that's a moralistic point of view, but like it or not between my father leaving me £100k and me receiving it I've been taxed £40k. It's just semantics again we're arguing a point where it really doesn't matter who the taxee is be it a logical estate or a real person, in the end the result is the same and the treasury gets it's money.

Point of note. No tax would normally be due against an inheritance of £100K.

 

[Baldseagull]

Yes, it was the deceased person's money. After he dies it becomes the money owned by whoever he left it to. Just like the house he owned or the car he owned. Was is the key word in your statement.

At the point the tax is paid it "is" the deceased person's estate, it does not belong to anyone else, not until the executor has distributed it.

With income tax, if you are on PAYE, your employer does pay tax and NI on your behalf, it is you being taxed, but the employer also pays NI for you that is a tax on them.
You wouldn't claim that employers NI contributions are a tax on you, but when your employer is working out what they can pay you as a salary, they will deduct their NI contribution cost, from what they have worked out they can afford to pay to have you work for them.

 

[Baldseagull]

Points of view again isn't it. Same situation my dad leaves me £100k in his will, I only receive £60k so I've been "taxed" 40%. Whether I've earned it or not is immaterial, that's a moralistic point of view, but like it or not between my father leaving me £100k and me receiving it I've been taxed £40k. It's just semantics again we're arguing a point where it really doesn't matter who the taxee is be it a logical estate or a real person, in the end the result is the same and the treasury gets it's money.

If your dad leaves you a specified amount in his will, and there is enough money in his estate after tax, you would get the full specified amount.

 

[nevergoagain]

If your dad leaves you a specified amount in his will, and there is enough money in his estate after tax, you would get the full specified amount.

Yep correct but that assumes that there is more in the estate than is allocated to people/charities etc. else it would all be pro-rata down wouldn't it ?. If the estate was £1m and the will allocates out £1m then you won't get the full amount. I appreciate that means there ought to be better planning by the person about to die (not gladiator) to make sure the will takes into account of the IHT.

 

[Baldseagull]

Yep correct but that assumes that there is more in the estate than is allocated to people/charities etc. else it would all be pro-rata down wouldn't it ?. If the estate was £1m and the will allocates out £1m then you won't get the full amount. I appreciate that means there ought to be better planning by the person about to die (not gladiator) to make sure the will takes into account of the IHT.

Yes, exactly, there is no tax planning or arranging of affairs that you as a recipient can make or could have made that will affect the tax on the estate, the deceased may have been able to arrange things better.
Are we agreed now? At least on IHT not being a tax on working people?

 

[nevergoagain]

Yes, exactly, there is no tax planning or arranging of affairs that you as a recipient can make or could have made that will affect the tax on the estate, the deceased may have been able to arrange things better.
Are we agreed now? At least on IHT not being a tax on working people?

I'll give you IHT if you concede on dividend tax

 

[Baldseagull]

I'll give you IHT if you concede on dividend tax

Ooh, I am tempted to agree, but then we would both be wrong

 

[rippleman]

I think bite size chunks might help.

Does someone pay the bill?

There you go

How Inheritance Tax works: thresholds, rules and allowances

Inheritance Tax (IHT) is paid when a person's estate is worth more than £325,000 when they die - exemptions, passing on property. Sometimes known as death duties.

www.gov.uk

 

[Is it PotG?]

There you go

How Inheritance Tax works: thresholds, rules and allowances

Inheritance Tax (IHT) is paid when a person's estate is worth more than £325,000 when they die - exemptions, passing on property. Sometimes known as death duties.

www.gov.uk

Yes, and a living person pays the bill.