Yes, its totally terrible, I've arranged to get my mum's house transferred into my name early so I don't have to pay inheritance tax.
2006-08-28 15:20:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The money or estate that is inherited was already taxed while the person was living. Inheritance tax is a double-tax. It's stupid and it should be banned.
Any taxes owed on property / estate after it is retained by the heir, yes, should then be paid by the heir because it is now theirs. This is nothing more than the regular tax that the living person pays for the things they owned prior to inheriting the new estate. Other than that, there should not be a separate death tax.
2006-08-28 15:23:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I WOULD be opposed to it out of principal, but it doesn't affect me so I will let those with the big bucks fight their own battles.
Believe it or not, in most situations, estate taxes will not have to be paid by your inheritors. In fact, unless your property is worth more than $1.5 million, your estate will not have to pay taxes. Also, any property left to a spouse is exempt from taxes, as well as any property left to a tax-exempt charity.
However, a few states do have inheritance taxes – where they person inheriting the estate will have to pay a certain amount of taxes, depending on your relationship to the inheritor (the closer to the relative, the less taxes in general).
Nevertheless, many states do impose an estate tax, and because of the current tax structure, state estate taxes are on the rise.
Here's a chart which shows the graduating tax amount:
http://www.mbscott.com/taxchrt.htm
Here's some updated info from: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108143,00.html
Estate Tax Questions
Reminder: Most relatively simple estates (cash, publicly-traded securities, small amounts of other easily-valued assets, and no special deductions or elections, or jointly-held property) with a total value under $1,000,000 do not require the filing of an estate tax return. The amount was $1,500,000 in 2004 and 2005. For 2006 through 2008, the amount is raised to $2,000,000.
2006-08-28 15:21:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Yinzer from Sixburgh 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Like most allowances this one has been indexed at the lowest possible rate and so catches far more people than originally intended.
It is set at a swingeing 40%, so even if you were a low or no tax payer when you were alive you become a surtax payer when you die.
The super-rich rarely get caught as they can afford to pay smart accountants to find ways around it, so it's the ordinary person who ends up paying it.
A lifetime of prudent finance is wiped out by a greedy government trying to wring every last penny it can out of anything that lives, breathes and then dies.
2006-08-28 15:37:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by CeeVee 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
It amazes me that people complain about death being taxed. Like they imagine it's free. Death has a remarkable cost. After you die your body and your estate do go on. While it's unlikely but not even impossible that you'll continue to generate income all aspects of your financial life have to be corrected in the system. The larger your empire the more of a burdon you place on the system when you die. If you have your last will and testiment carved in stone you're awesome but few people do and their deaths create a circus for the Probate courts who will have to settle their affairs on the State's dime. If you haven't made funerary plans and you don't have a family who can look after you the state has to dispose of your body. Washington State attends to the deaths of over 2000 souls a month. Your death wheather you percieve yourself as a burden to the system or not costs the Goverment money. If you don't like it, don't die!
2006-08-28 15:33:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by W0LF 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I trust your initial remark with regards to unlawful immigrants and refugees. to this point as inheritance tax is in touch - I dislike it and disagree with it in central. notwithstanding, with the intention to run the country and to provide "loose" facilities alongside with the NHS and education, then the authorities has to pull in a particular volume of money from taxation. If inheritance tax changed into stopped then that ought to leave a great deficit in the authorities's funds, and that deficit ought to ought to made up elsewhere.So scrap inheritance tax and shall we all pay more beneficial earnings tax, highway tax, council tax and so on. we are able to not win whichever way it changed into performed.
2016-11-28 03:32:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The inheritance tax is a dinosaur. It is the most unjustifiable tax in existence. It punishes people for dying unexpectedly, more than anything.
2006-08-28 15:16:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by greeneyedprincess 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most definitely should be banned. How awful to tax a persons dependents on "taxed money" they worked so hard to leave. Absolute disgrace!
2006-08-31 07:58:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by snarleye 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm with you. The dead already has paid taxes on their money. Now the person they give it to has to pay taxes on the same money. We are getting screwed.
2006-08-30 01:42:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by sheeny 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sure and income tax is a tax on living productively. I'm against estate taxes, but for econometric reasons.
2006-08-28 15:16:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋