Clitheroekid wrote:Lootman wrote:The new fee kicks in at £50,000 which is a much more modest sum.
Under the present arrangements you have to pay a fee of £215 if the estate is over the tiny figure of £5k. But under the new proposals there will be no fee at all for estates of less than £50k.
This is a very significant concession, and as 58% of estates are less than that figure far more people will benefit from the new proposals than will be adversely affected.
Furthermore, the fee is only £300 for estates up to £300k, which is a small and insignificant increase on the current fee of £215. As 81% of estates are less than £300k this means that fewer than 20% of estates will be noticeably affected. And it's fair to say that although those inheriting larger estates will no doubt be irritated it's hardly what might be described as a serious injustice to them – a `first world problem’ if ever there was one!It always surprises me that so many people are resentful about someone getting an inheritance, even though we all surely want to try and help our children.
I don't think it's necessarily a feeling of resentfulness, and I agree that most people probably do think it's right that children should be able to inherit a reasonable sum – say up to the IHT threshold - without a penalty. But people who inherit large sums of money - the sort of inheritances that the fees will affect - have rarely done anything to merit it, and it therefore ill becomes them to whinge that a relatively small part of their loot is being diverted to the public purse.Even so, as I noted earlier, about 90% of the feedback received for this plan was negative.
That's because the vast majority of the feedback was from those with a vested interest, nearly all the responses coming from solicitors and accountants. They would naturally want to protect the interests of their wealthy clients - and no doubt they made it quite clear to those clients that they had strongly objected - but I suspect that the vast majority of people in the UK would either approve of the proposals or be entirely unconcerned by them.
Hang on a minute, Clitheroekid. Have you forgotten about Inheritance Tax which is already punishing those who have made the mistake of saving rather than ski-ing. How many times should they be allowed to tax the same money? You should not assume that vast sums of wealth are going to heirs other than the spouse and you should not forget that if everything is jointly owned probate is not required so there is no probate fee/tax payable and no weeks of misery trying to plod through interminable forms and badly written guidance notes. In such cases, much larger estates could pass to the spouse without anything being paid at all. However, even if there is only a jointly owned house and some ISAs, which can't be jointly owned, and a few NSandI certificates. all of which might not add up to very much, and it's all going to the spouse or perhaps sums up to the IHT exempt amount going to the children (who may not get much each if there are a lot of them) this outrageous so-called fee, which the govt. have admitted will actually be classified as a tax. And don't forget that this fee/tax must be paid before probate is granted, It could present a real problem for a widow who is left with a reduced pension, a house and not much else. And if you think adding yet another progressive tax to IHT and effectively also taxing that tax is OK (since it's not deductible from any IHT payable) why stop at £2m? It goes from £4k a £1m to £8k at £1,000,001 so why not keep doubling it all the way up to the total value of an estate when it might be noticed by the really rich and then we might hear rather more objections unless they have their wealth offshore or in fancy trusts that people like me don't know about and don't want to know about because we are quite prepared to pay our fair share of tax, but it should be fair. What's the point of encouraging people to save in ISAs in case they get lumbered with massive nursing home fees only to clobber them with a new tax which only affects non-joint assets in many/most cases.
Have another think about this Clitheroekid and let us know if you still think the same.
Incidentally, the signatures on the petition were over 10,000 when I looked last night (I don't know how long it has been up and running) so there will have to be a response but I think 100,000 are needed for a parliamentary debate and I don't know how long we have to get there. I responded to the petition and I am not a solicitor but if not many other ordinary members of the public did not, I suggest that it is because they did not know. I listened for this in the budget speech but not a word; it was apparently hidden in the small print which the public never sees.