NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok at christmas my grandad passed away to join my gran in the afterlife, Bless them !


Then the task of sorting out the money came along my dad and his brother had to do this, then The government want 40% inheritance tax of the total sum after we sell his house !!


40 Bloody Percent !!

Thats nearly half of all his life savings, he worked all his life and now they take that away !!

It's bloody shocking and actually makes me sick !!

Whats it like in your country ??

That sucks, man. I have no idea what America takes, being apathetic about death. I don't like to think about it.

Yeah I think it is rather stupid myself … they already taxed him when he MADE all that money.

Slap my momma and call me a bitch, that's robbery!

Well he is dead and I'm sure he won't notice it, I understand there is some phrase about not being able to take it with you. Unless, of course, you were planning on burying his posessions with him for his use in an afterlife, then this seems most unfair. Where I live we reslved this problem by not taking estates but instead taxing inheirtances, thus if you do take it with you there are no taxes due.

Seriously, I have no problem with a 100% estate tax. Once you die, your rights disappear. Now if you are talking about an inheritance tax instead of an estate tax, the 40% rate seems reasonable. What did the inheritors do to deserve the money, get born into the right family? Why should someone have the right to a taxfree installment of unearned money, and what's wrong with taxing it? It's all found money, so it's all good isn't it?

Seriously, I have no problem with a 100% estate tax. Once you die, your rights disappear. Now if you are talking about an inheritance tax instead of an estate tax, the 40% rate seems reasonable. What did the inheritors do to deserve the money, get born into the right family? Why should someone have the right to a taxfree installment of unearned money, and what's wrong with taxing it? It's all found money, so it's all good isn't it?
If it was his property then it was his to distribute as he willed it. He gave it to his grandchildren and now it becomes their property because by doing so he surrendered the property claim to his heirs.

Well he is dead and I'm sure he won't notice it, I understand there is some phrase about not being able to take it with you. Unless, of course, you were planning on burying his posessions with him for his use in an afterlife, then this seems most unfair. Where I live we reslved this problem by not taking estates but instead taxing inheirtances, thus if you do take it with you there are no taxes due.

Seriously, I have no problem with a 100% estate tax. Once you die, your rights disappear. Now if you are talking about an inheritance tax instead of an estate tax, the 40% rate seems reasonable. What did the inheritors do to deserve the money, get born into the right family? Why should someone have the right to a taxfree installment of unearned money, and what's wrong with taxing it? It's all found money, so it's all good isn't it?
And it is thinking like this that which made us have to sell our family farm after my grandmothers death because the estate tax was into the hundreds of thousands

Well he is dead and I'm sure he won't notice it, I understand there is some phrase about not being able to take it with you. Unless, of course, you were planning on burying his posessions with him for his use in an afterlife, then this seems most unfair. Where I live we reslved this problem by not taking estates but instead taxing inheirtances, thus if you do take it with you there are no taxes due.

Seriously, I have no problem with a 100% estate tax. Once you die, your rights disappear. Now if you are talking about an inheritance tax instead of an estate tax, the 40% rate seems reasonable. What did the inheritors do to deserve the money, get born into the right family? Why should someone have the right to a taxfree installment of unearned money, and what's wrong with taxing it? It's all found money, so it's all good isn't it?


Well he knew by saving it would help his grand children and he saved quite a lot in his long life , YOUR RIGHTS don't dissapear when your dead they are passed on to your family !!

ITS NOT THE INHERITORS WHO WANT THE MONEY, HE WANTED US TO HAVE IT !! WHAT DID WE DO TO DESERVE THE MONEY ?? GAVE HIM LOVE AND A FAMILY !! Pfft

It's totally unreasonable he worked in england for years saving his pennies and moved to Scotland to relax in a bungalow, they have no RIGHT TO HIS MONEY !!

wow that sucks. is it a flat 40% on the whole estate?

last time i knew in the US you didnt start paying inheritance tax until your estate went over $1million (or was it $2million). i have no idea what the % is after that, i dont think anyone in my family will ever have that big an estate.

I agree, inheritance tax has got to go. I'm so sick of the government taxing everything. They tax you for making money, they tax you for spending money, they tax you for paying taxes (I'm serious, they do), they tax you for getting married, they tax you for having children, they tax you for dying, they tax you for giving your family whatever money you had left after all this taxing, and then they tax you even more because now you have more money! It's disgusting! Its because of all the stupid Leftist socialists!

Thats pretty fucked up. How much was your inheretance before taxes?


The U.S. federal government imposes an estate tax, calculated as a percentage of the part of the estate that exceeds the current exempted value. For 2005, an estate with a value less than $1,500,000 would not pay an estate tax and most likely would not have to file an estate tax return. Many U.S. states also impose their own estate or inheritance taxes (See state estate tax).

For estates larger than the current exempted amount, any estate tax due is paid by the executor or other person responsible for administering the estate. That person is also responsible for filing a return with the Internal Revenue Service. The return must contain detailed information as to the valuations of the estate assets and the exemptions claimed, to ensure that the correct amount of tax is paid.

Life insurance benefits generally form part of the gross estate for tax purposes, if the benefits are payable to the estate, or if the decedent was the owner of the life insurance policy or had any "incidents of ownership" over the life insurance policy. Similarly, bank accounts or other financial instruments which are "payable on death" or "transfer on death" are usually included in the taxable estate, even though such assets are not subject to the probate process.

The taxable portion of an estate can be reduced through charitable contributions or provisions that allow executors of some qualifying family-owned farms to reduce the taxable value of an estate's real property by some percentage of market value (up to certain limits) if certain eligible heirs continue to actively farm the property for over a decade.

Many of its opponents refer to the estate tax as the "death tax" and have called for its abolition. Since 2002, the top rate has dropped from 50% by one percent per year; it is scheduled to drop to 45% in 2009, thence to 0% in 2010, but as of 2005, if no further changes in the law are enacted, the tax will be reimposed at a top rate of 50% in 2011. It is, however, expected that Congress will enact legislation to change this in the intervening period.

wow that sucks. is it a flat 40% on the whole estate?

last time i knew in the US you didnt start paying inheritance tax until your estate went over $1million (or was it $2million). i have no idea what the % is after that, i dont think anyone in my family will ever have that big an estate.

40% on the total of the estate and anything else he had !

They sum it all up then tax it.


Thats pretty fucked up. How much was your inheretance before taxes?

I don't actually know, I know the house is worth £180,000 at least.

It's income. You get taxed on income. I got taxed 25% when I withdrew from the retirement plan of one of my old jobs, even though my wages that went into it were originally taxed. It's just the way it works.

The 40% tax is only on estates over £275,000 (~$500,000),and the 40% only applies on that part which is over £275,000, so for most people it doesn't apply at all.

Unless you are particularly rich you can avoid paying inheritance tax anyway by passing on assets before you die. I've just received £40,000 from my mother-in-law which will be tax free as long as she lives 7 years and my father is signing 1/4 of his house over to me and another quarter over to my brother.

My grandfather signed over most of his assets years ago to avoid inheritance tax.

Bluestrips2']40% on the total of the estate and anything else he had !

They sum it all up then tax it.

you mean that if his estate had been £1,000 they would have taken £400???

that sucks big time!

If you are American, however, they are not done with you after the Federal Death Tax. They leave enough for the states to get their cut and then of course there is the lawyers and court costs.

you mean that if his estate had been £1,000 they would have taken £400???

that sucks big time!

No, it's only if it goes over a certain amount. His grandfather's estate was obviously a lot of money. I think it's $500,000 here, and I think it's around the same in the UK.

What did the inheritors do to deserve the money, get born into the right family? Why should someone have the right to a taxfree installment of unearned money, and what's wrong with taxing it? It's all found money, so it's all good isn't it?
Its funny you should bring this up, because I was thinking about this sort of thing at work today. Puzzling to me was the logic used by many socialists to voraciously oppose the dispersal of estates and inheritences and such, and then turn around and with their next breath tell me that every man has 'economic rights,' i.e. an automatic right to man-made products and values on virtue of their existence alone.

If every man has a 'natural right' to a certain amount of money and food, why do the ones that get them end up so harshly villified? I can understand that they didn't do any work for it, but every time I try the "don't work, don't eat" argument, I have to listen to the Left piss and moan about how selfish I am. Christ, tell me something I don't know.

you mean that if his estate had been £1,000 they would have taken £400???

that sucks big time!

No, if his estate was £1000 he would not pay inheritance tax. You don't pay inheritance tax on the first £275,000.

Oh, and I just remembered something that may not have been pointed out yet: the thread's author might actually be able to sue the US government for this since a Death Tax [and a Sales Tax, as a matter of fact] is a double tax on the same money. The thing the Government doesn't realize is that if you tax all income as it comes in, you effectively can't tax anything else since it would be a double tax. Which is very illegal. Apparently.

If he wanted you to have it all, then he should have given it to you while he still had the right to dispose of his property as he wanted to (was alive). He chose not to exercise his right to dispose of his property as he wished, and now he can no longer do so. Since he chose not to exercise his right to dispose of his property, just be glad that they are willing to let you keep a fraction of it.

He's dead, his rights died with him. Interesting concept, rights being inheritable and such - I completely reject it. Rights are inherient in being human, not inheritable - they are equal for all people and one cannot gain any more rights by virtue of inheritance or have less rights than anyone else. They are individual and non-transferable, if you don't have the right to free speech (say you live in Germany and want to talk about Nazis), I cannot give you mine - the closest I can come is to exert my right on your behalf.

However there are 2 different tacks, which are worth examining. I reject that rights exist after death, with one can no longer exercise them. If someone can justify why rights should continue after death I'd be willing to consider it. I'm not sure if you want to open this can of worms though, I mean the one where people have rights without having to be alive, it seems a reasonable, clear, bright-line distinction.

The other is that is only alluded to is that it interfers with living people's rights. An example, would be the right to live on the family farm. If you can establish why you should have a right to live on ancestral lands, then it certainly is open to debate.

Honestly, it's not that I like the concept of estate taxes, but I can find no justification to reject them (besides greed). People die and their rights die with them, they no longer have any personal use for their property and cannot enjoy the use of it anyway. If we acept that property rights exist after death, BTW, if someone dies without a will do their posssions continue to belong to them on and on forever?

Honestly, it's not that I like the concept of estate taxes, but I can find no justification to reject them (besides greed). People die and their rights die with them, they no longer have any personal use for their property and cannot enjoy the use of it anyway. If we acept that property rights exist after death, BTW, if someone dies without a will do their posssions continue to belong to them on and on forever?

No but his family who he has spent most of life caring for can !! And this is what he would want obviously.

People die and their rights die with them is CRAZY !

How can you honestly back up this right when you too may have kids and a family would you not want them to have something to remember you by when you do finally die ?

I know I would want my family who i've spent years caring for, sheltering, loving and having fun with to have my cash.

No rights !! My family have rights, my grandad had rights and just because he is dead they use this to squeeze more money out of us because he isn't here to defend it.

No, it's only if it goes over a certain amount. His grandfather's estate was obviously a lot of money. I think it's $500,000 here, and I think it's around the same in the UK.
i think its 100,000 or something in the UK... but thats only what i remember

got this off this (http://www.moneypage.com/Investments/Tax/Inheritance_Tax.html) site

You should check with the Inland Revenue with regards to the minimum value for inheritance tax, as this can change from year to year


this tax is no more or less "unfair" than paying normal taxes monthy or yearly throughout your life - just its unfortunate that it has to all be paid as one pretty large lump sum. its wealth & income redistribution in action - yay socialism!
it is, however, a flat tax - meaning it is regressive, so the (relative) poor pay more. this is wholly unfair imho, and is compounded as the rich usually can afford to find loopholes & ways out of paying the full 40%.


edit: on the continent don't they do away with inheritance tax by having a yearly "wealth tax" on savings as well as normal income tax on earnings? or am i mistaken :confused:
edit: by "on the continent" i meant Germany...

Oh, and I just remembered something that may not have been pointed out yet: the thread's author might actually be able to sue the US government for this since a Death Tax [and a Sales Tax, as a matter of fact] is a double tax on the same money. The thing the Government doesn't realize is that if you tax all income as it comes in, you effectively can't tax anything else since it would be a double tax. Which is very illegal. Apparently.Apparently only. The is no law against double taxation per se (although there are laws and treaties about certain types of double taxation, usually dealing with multiple jurisdictions taxing the same item).

Bluestrips2']Ok at christmas my grandad passed away to join my gran in the afterlife, Bless them !


Then the task of sorting out the money came along my dad and his brother had to do this, then The government want 40% inheritance tax of the total sum after we sell his house !!


40 Bloody Percent !!

Thats nearly half of all his life savings, he worked all his life and now they take that away !!

It's bloody shocking and actually makes me sick !!

Whats it like in your country ??

Insanity isn't it. You'd think he could leave a home for his family to live in... :rolleyes:

If he wanted you to have it all, then he should have given it to you while he still had the right to dispose of his property as he wanted to (was alive). He chose not to exercise his right to dispose of his property as he wished, and now he can no longer do so. Since he chose not to exercise his right to dispose of his property, just be glad that they are willing to let you keep a fraction of it.

He's dead, his rights died with him. Interesting concept, rights being inheritable and such - I completely reject it. Rights are inherient in being human, not inheritable - they are equal for all people and one cannot gain any more rights by virtue of inheritance or have less rights than anyone else. They are individual and non-transferable, if you don't have the right to free speech (say you live in Germany and want to talk about Nazis), I cannot give you mine - the closest I can come is to exert my right on your behalf.

However there are 2 different tacks, which are worth examining. I reject that rights exist after death, with one can no longer exercise them. If someone can justify why rights should continue after death I'd be willing to consider it. I'm not sure if you want to open this can of worms though, I mean the one where people have rights without having to be alive, it seems a reasonable, clear, bright-line distinction.

The other is that is only alluded to is that it interfers with living people's rights. An example, would be the right to live on the family farm. If you can establish why you should have a right to live on ancestral lands, then it certainly is open to debate.

Honestly, it's not that I like the concept of estate taxes, but I can find no justification to reject them (besides greed). People die and their rights die with them, they no longer have any personal use for their property and cannot enjoy the use of it anyway. If we acept that property rights exist after death, BTW, if someone dies without a will do their posssions continue to belong to them on and on forever?
Even though I have some serious philosophical problems with the vast majority of this post, there is one thing and one thing only I would like to address: It's not so much a question of 'rights after death' because the Will was sort of... you know... written while he was still alive. A Will is pretty much a legal document telling the people fortunate enough to outlive you just what should be done with your property once you're finished with it. Now, 'rights after death' would in theory require the deceased to contact you from beyond the grave with instructions on how to dispense his possessions.

Bottom line: As long as everyone involved is aware that a Will is, in fact, the last living testament of the deceased, the content in it deals with everything s/he worked for their whole life. Taking more of it away would be like kicking an auto mechanic in the balls after his jack fell down on top of him: it's pointless and petty.

Insanity isn't it. You'd think he could leave a home for his family to live in... :rolleyes:

Exactly ;)



Even though I have some serious philosophical problems with the vast majority of this post, there is one thing and one thing only I would like to address: It's not so much a question of 'rights after death' because the Will was sort of... you know... written while he was still alive. A Will is pretty much a legal document telling the people fortunate enough to outlive you just what should be done with your property once you're finished with it. Now, 'rights after death' would in theory require the deceased to contact you from beyond the grave with instructions on how to dispense his possessions.

Bottom line: As long as everyone involved is aware that a Will is, in fact, the last living testament of the deceased, the content in it deals with everything s/he worked for their whole life. Taking more of it away would be like kicking an auto mechanic in the balls after his jack fell down on top of him: it's pointless and petty.

Well said !

That is why we wright will's in the first place to give to our familys what we wont be able to use when we do die.

Bluestrips2']No but his family who he has spent most of life caring for can !! And this is what he would want obviously.

People die and their rights die with them is CRAZY !

How can you honestly back up this right when you too may have kids and a family would you not want them to have something to remember you by when you do finally die ?

I know I would want my family who i've spent years caring for, sheltering, loving and having fun with to have my cash.

No rights !! My family have rights, my grandad had rights and just because he is dead they use this to squeeze more money out of us because he isn't here to defend it.

It is theft by government is what it is. It's origional intention was honorable enough, as it was used only in cases of National Emergency and when that was over it was recinded. Unfortunately somewhere down the line, a group of people decided it was not theft if they took someones earnings and savings as long as it was for the good of the whole, the down trodden, the infirm and themselves. Then came FDR who took it to a whole new level by making it 100% and finally settling in at 90% for several years. In any event, it was never the rich that got soaked. It was the small business owner and the middle class working stiff that invested wisely so his family could have a better life than he did. That guy can usually never imagine his government would rape his family after his demise, and does not even understand the concept of having to have a lawyer unless he has done something wrong.

Bluestrips2']Ok at christmas my grandad passed away to join my gran in the afterlife, Bless them !


Then the task of sorting out the money came along my dad and his brother had to do this, then The government want 40% inheritance tax of the total sum after we sell his house !!


40 Bloody Percent !!

Thats nearly half of all his life savings, he worked all his life and now they take that away !!

It's bloody shocking and actually makes me sick !!

Whats it like in your country ??

In the US it is called "Estate Tax"; and it is presently at 47% (down from 50% in 2002; schedualed to be set at 45% by 2009); for Federal Taxes, on all estates exceeding $1,500,000. There can also be State levied Estate Taxes; some states do not have it; The state with the largest Estate Tax is a tie between Pennsylvania, 15% set gross value of estate to non-blood relatives for properties valuing over $200,000; 10% for offspring; and 5% for spouses: and Kansas, which imposes a flat 15% on all estates $200,000 or more; and 10% to estates over $100,000.

Bluestrips2']Exactly ;)

That is why we wright will's in the first place to give to our familys what we wont be able to use when we do die.

Can you please admit that what you have said is untrue. He has not had to pay 40% tax on his life savings. He has paid 40% tax on anything over £275,000,that's a big difference. It is only through his lack of foresight that he paid any tax at all, as the Channel 4 guide (http://www.channel4.com/4money/taxpensions/guides/inheritance_tax_guide_101003.html) states it is the easiest tax to avoid.

Bluestrips2']No but his family who he has spent most of life caring for can !! And this is what he would want obviously.

People die and their rights die with them is CRAZY !

How can you honestly back up this right when you too may have kids and a family would you not want them to have something to remember you by when you do finally die ?

I know I would want my family who i've spent years caring for, sheltering, loving and having fun with to have my cash.

No rights !! My family have rights, my grandad had rights and just because he is dead they use this to squeeze more money out of us because he isn't here to defend it.But that's just it, he cannot defend them. Rights only exist as long as you can exercise them, if he were suddently to decide that he wanted to sell his house and send his corpse on a round the world cruise, he couldn't. Excluding spiritualism (which has all kinds of problems) he cannot make his wishes and desires known, he can no longer exercise personal control over is property, the option for that is gone.

If I may, "How can you honestly back up this right when you too may have kids and a family would you not want them to have something to remember you by when you do finally die ?" is an argument for what? Because I want something it should be mine as a matter of right? Well how about my right to a new car every year, I certainly want one. There has to be a greater justification to create a right than simple want on the part of some individuals. Personally, I make provision during my life for those that I wish to remeber me after my life has ended, but I'm pretty cynical and half expect a 100% estate tax to be passed the day before I die. As for your question, it would benefit me little in reality with regards to my own death.