Stamp duty may be widely considered unfair, but readers argue that inheritance tax (IHT) takes the top spot for various reasons. Many readers caution against the ease with which the very wealthy can avoid paying taxes, while the middle classes are burdened with the full 40 percent.
Nigel Curtress, one reader, supports the notion that the middle classes bear the brunt of IHT. He argues, “it’s only the little people who pay the tax.”
Nigel explains that the wealthy can completely evade IHT by transferring their estates to their children while they are still likely to live. They then reside in the estate’s nice house, and the children inherit the valuable property. This cycle perpetuates.
In a similar vein, reader Simon Pearson claims, “Any tax that can be avoided by people like the King and the Duke of Westminster, or anyone else with the wit and resources to get timely advice, is pure evil.”
Some readers also view IHT as double taxation, regarding it as deeply “immoral.” David Summers argues, “hard-earned money that individuals accumulate has already been taxed. Aging and death should not grant the government the right to seize it, denying loved ones what is rightfully theirs.”
Others detest the tax for sentimental reasons. R Whinnett explains that her maiden aunt, a nurse throughout her life, incurred IHT when she passed away at age 82. She states, “Her beneficiaries considered themselves fortunate to inherit the remaining money, and it transformed my life. What pained us was seeing all her possessions, including sentimental items, being valued and sold.”
John Hall shares this sentiment, believing that “leaving the family home to one’s children is an act of love. The state stealing it is criminal.”
In addition to personal sentiments, some individuals take issue with not having control over how their hard-earned money is spent. They fear it may be squandered by the government, particularly on strategies and causes like immigration and achieving net-zero emissions.
D Morrell argues that it is “better for private individuals to keep the money than to give it to the government to waste.”
K Furley shares his experience of his hardworking children who have been unable to afford a house despite their efforts. Therefore, Mr. Furley feels it is his right and his children’s right to fully benefit from his modest estate. He questions why the government should take from it, stating that the money would be wasted and disappear into government coffers.
John Youngs echoes Mr. Furley’s sentiments, viewing inheritance tax as “stealing from responsible members of our community and giving to the idle.”
For many readers, eliminating the tax altogether is the only reasonable solution. They urge the government to follow the examples of Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and Sweden. Reader Andrew Okoye asserts that “no one should be punished for being highly productive, financially responsible, or sacrificing for prosperity.”
However, some readers propose reform rather than complete abolition of the tax. J Ward, for instance, suggests raising the threshold to £5 million per person to make it “much fairer.” Tim Higgs recommends closing loopholes that allow certain individuals to avoid paying, ensuring that everyone who is eligible contributes.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
