Or bitcoin, for those with more technical aptitude and higher risk tolerances.
Old people and cryptographic keys, what could possibly go wrong?
Yeah, so you get your kids/grandkids to set things up, the cold wallet goes into a safety deposit box and you keep the key. In theory you still have control, but assuming you don't need the money, they can easily access it as soon as they like after the funeral.
What's the difference with storing a stash of cash in a safe under the bed?
In both cases you're breaking the law and it's then a matter of your conscience and the risk of being caught/reported.
I'm not advocating this. They're the same other than the risk of losing everything during a break in.
Edit: the crypto route also destroys the paper chain more thoroughly, making it harder for HMRC to determine what actually happened when.
What the “lifetime allowance” does is prevent people from giving gifts to their children in their lifetime. Currently records only need to be kept for 7 years (I believe) for inheritance tax details. God know how a lifetime allowance would work admistratively. Would every single gift (or benefiting kind???) above a certain amount from birth have to be reported to HMRC, with threat of jail (for tax fraud)if not done so? And this would have to be done by everyone because you never know when you might be the unexpected beneficiary of an inheritance windfall in future.
That was a thought I had as well. But another one is, would you tax the value at the time of the gift, or at the time of death? Because for many people in their seventies that’s would make a huge difference.
I’m not sure whether the “lifetime” applies to the donor or the recipient. If the latter you presumably tax it as you go along, so the value at the gift when the donor dies is irrelevant. It’s not an inheritance tax at all, it’s just a gift tax. If it all relates to the donor then you create scenarios where somebody gets gifts early on in life (say parents putting money into a university fund, or towards a house). By the time of the donors death, the recipient will quite likely find themselves with no means to pay whatever tax comes their way.
Effectively it’s just treated as income in the period it is received
And every individual in the country receiving a gift from any source has to fill in a tax return. Because one day, an accumulation of gifts may breach the threshold.
With question of whether it’s £125k combined from multiple sources, or £125k per individual source.
God, it’s a good job us pb’ers don’t make Government policy.
Cutting IHT allowances is a terrible idea and would be wildly unpopular.
People work hard all their lives for their estates and legacy, particularly their family homes, and want to be able to dispose of it how they choose.
If the State tries to intervene in that then don’t expect the party that advocated that policy to benefit.
House prices though, which is a significant part of most people's wealth, haven't risen as a result of the owners efforts, or if they have..... installation of a conservatory, central heating etc. ...... only marginally. They've risen as a result of a collective action..... either inflation or a general rise in prosperity, or alternatively, shortage..... collective failure to build enough for the next generation. So shouldn't the 'collective' have some benefit, rather than the 'lucky' individual?
The reasons that house prices have boomed in the last decade are state subsidies through QE, help to buy, housing benefit, state owned and subsidised banks offering loans at rates economically unaffordable without QE.
Free market conservatives should be applauding the removal of the subsidies and anything that will bring wages back in line with house prices. That is rewarding hard work and effort which is what I understood the conservatives to stand for until recently.
It seems to be the variation between the pollsters seems to be narrowing. Tory lead ~10% which should in theory be enough for a comfortable majority.
However, the campaign hasn't really got going yet - there is still a lot to play for.
NOM at 2.8ish on Betfair Exchange seems very good value - agree?
Voters are beginning to realise that Corbyn isn't the monster of the Daily Mail's imagination and that stripped of the bluster Johnson is an empty vessel. Corbyn looks like he cares. He has the manner of a long time social worker. Johnson looks like a self absorbed dilletante.
(I'm voting Swinson because I don't like the influence of the Unions)
You should come canvassing around the Council estates in my seat Roger. They can't stand Corbyn, in 3 hours I found just one Labour voter yesterday.
What the “lifetime allowance” does is prevent people from giving gifts to their children in their lifetime. Currently records only need to be kept for 7 years (I believe) for inheritance tax details. God know how a lifetime allowance would work admistratively. Would every single gift (or benefiting kind???) above a certain amount from birth have to be reported to HMRC, with threat of jail (for tax fraud)if not done so? And this would have to be done by everyone because you never know when you might be the unexpected beneficiary of an inheritance windfall in future.
That was a thought I had as well. But another one is, would you tax the value at the time of the gift, or at the time of death? Because for many people in their seventies that’s would make a huge difference.
I’m not sure whether the “lifetime” applies to the donor or the recipient. If the latter you presumably tax it as you go along, so the value at the gift when the donor dies is irrelevant. It’s not an inheritance tax at all, it’s just a gift tax. If it all relates to the donor then you create scenarios where somebody gets gifts early on in life (say parents putting money into a university fund, or towards a house). By the time of the donors death, the recipient will quite likely find themselves with no means to pay whatever tax comes their way.
Effectively it’s just treated as income in the period it is received
And every individual in the country receiving a gift from any source has to fill in a tax return. Because one day, an accumulation of gifts may breach the threshold.
Well yes, exactly. Also what constitutes a 'gift'. Birthday presents? Paying for a holiday, or providing accommodation, or paying for shopping or a meal out?
Does the gift start at birth? So do 1 year olds have to declare gifts, or would grandparents have to fill out a tax form with their birthday cards?
If a parent did a round of shopping for £100 once a month, thats £1,200 per year... would there be tax to pay on that, and how would it be administrated.
Is this retrospective (answer no...) so how would transition be accounted for?
What the “lifetime allowance” does is prevent people from giving gifts to their children in their lifetime. Currently records only need to be kept for 7 years (I believe) for inheritance tax details. God know how a lifetime allowance would work admistratively. Would every single gift (or benefiting kind???) above a certain amount from birth have to be reported to HMRC, with threat of jail (for tax fraud)if not done so? And this would have to be done by everyone because you never know when you might be the unexpected beneficiary of an inheritance windfall in future.
That was a thought I had as well. But another one is, would you tax the value at the time of the gift, or at the time of death? Because for many people in their seventies that’s would make a huge difference.
I’m not sure whether the “lifetime” applies to the donor or the recipient. If the latter you presumably tax it as you go along, so the value at the gift when the donor dies is irrelevant. It’s not an inheritance tax at all, it’s just a gift tax. If it all relates to the donor then you create scenarios where somebody gets gifts early on in life (say parents putting money into a university fund, or towards a house). By the time of the donors death, the recipient will quite likely find themselves with no means to pay whatever tax comes their way.
Effectively it’s just treated as income in the period it is received
And every individual in the country receiving a gift from any source has to fill in a tax return. Because one day, an accumulation of gifts may breach the threshold.
With question of whether it’s £125k combined from multiple sources, or £125k per individual source.
Would have to be individual source, otherwise, you would have transfers between random people set up. (I give you £125k, and you give someone else £125K) etc etc
No chance . I think the Tories rubbishing Labours manifesto before its published could backfire .
Tory strategy appears to be attack labour up front on all key areas such as tax, NHS, immigration to set the narrative that Labour are a danger to UK. No May like capitulation to Labour's "fully costed manifesto".
Once upon a time, you had to pay tax in order to get probate in order to get your fingers on the money, because without probate the banks and stockbrokers and everybody else wouldn't give you a penny. These days, I don't see what stops you putting your financial assets into a lot of online accounts and leaving your beneficiaries little bundles consisting of passwords to the accounts and the associated email addresses, and a mobile phone with the number associated with the account. This puts them in a position to scoop the lot without troubling hmrc at all. I do wonder whether this is happening and what is being done about it.
Or bitcoin, for those with more technical aptitude and higher risk tolerances.
Whose name are your hypothetical online accounts in; donor or recipient? Either way it creates a paper trail which HMRC could follow, if it wished.
Might be easier to just convert cash into high end jewellery, put it in a bank safety deposit box and let your kids know where you keep the key.
What is the margin on high end jewellery (i.e. buying retail selling privately)? How much interest does it pay over your remaining lifetime?
What the “lifetime allowance” does is prevent people from giving gifts to their children in their lifetime. Currently records only need to be kept for 7 years (I believe) for inheritance tax details. God know how a lifetime allowance would work admistratively. Would every single gift (or benefiting kind???) above a certain amount from birth have to be reported to HMRC, with threat of jail (for tax fraud)if not done so? And this would have to be done by everyone because you never know when you might be the unexpected beneficiary of an inheritance windfall in future.
That was a thought I had as well. But another one is, would you tax the value at the time of the gift, or at the time of death? Because for many people in their seventies that’s would make a huge difference.
I’m not sure whether the “lifetime” applies to the donor or the recipient. If the latter you presumably tax it as you go along, so the value at the gift when the donor dies is irrelevant. It’s not an inheritance tax at all, it’s just a gift tax. If it all relates to the donor then you create scenarios where somebody gets gifts early on in life (say parents putting money into a university fund, or towards a house). By the time of the donors death, the recipient will quite likely find themselves with no means to pay whatever tax comes their way.
Effectively it’s just treated as income in the period it is received
And every individual in the country receiving a gift from any source has to fill in a tax return. Because one day, an accumulation of gifts may breach the threshold.
With question of whether it’s £125k combined from multiple sources, or £125k per individual source.
Would have to be individual source, otherwise, you would have transfers between random people set up. (I give you £125k, and you give someone else £125K) etc etc
No. The proposal was £125k in the aggregate during your lifetime. Hence the lifetime gifts tax moniker.
Once upon a time, you had to pay tax in order to get probate in order to get your fingers on the money, because without probate the banks and stockbrokers and everybody else wouldn't give you a penny. These days, I don't see what stops you putting your financial assets into a lot of online accounts and leaving your beneficiaries little bundles consisting of passwords to the accounts and the associated email addresses, and a mobile phone with the number associated with the account. This puts them in a position to scoop the lot without troubling hmrc at all. I do wonder whether this is happening and what is being done about it.
That is a criminal offence and the Inland Revenue would not hesitate to prosecute
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
I cannot imagine why you think that way Charles
Because it’s a fact?
I suggest there's no evidence that IHT leads to dependence on the state. You could just as well argue that it leads to greater self reliance - as a few notable very wealthy people have thought by disinheriting their children.
The increases in succession tax toward the end of the 19th C and early 20th C contributed to the demise of the aristocracy and the end of the Downton Abbey world in which so many in our country were condemned to live less than a hundred years ago.
What the “lifetime allowance” does is prevent people from giving gifts to their children in their lifetime. Currently records only need to be kept for 7 years (I believe) for inheritance tax details. God know how a lifetime allowance would work admistratively. Would every single gift (or benefiting kind???) above a certain amount from birth have to be reported to HMRC, with threat of jail (for tax fraud)if not done so? And this would have to be done by everyone because you never know when you might be the unexpected beneficiary of an inheritance windfall in future.
That was a thought I had as well. But another one is, would you tax the value at the time of the gift, or at the time of death? Because for many people in their seventies that’s would make a huge difference.
I’m not sure whether the “lifetime” applies to the donor or the recipient. If the latter you presumably tax it as you go along, so the value at the gift when the donor dies is irrelevant. It’s not an inheritance tax at all, it’s just a gift tax. If it all relates to the donor then you create scenarios where somebody gets gifts early on in life (say parents putting money into a university fund, or towards a house). By the time of the donors death, the recipient will quite likely find themselves with no means to pay whatever tax comes their way.
Effectively it’s just treated as income in the period it is received
And every individual in the country receiving a gift from any source has to fill in a tax return. Because one day, an accumulation of gifts may breach the threshold.
With question of whether it’s £125k combined from multiple sources, or £125k per individual source.
Would have to be individual source, otherwise, you would have transfers between random people set up. (I give you £125k, and you give someone else £125K) etc etc
No. The proposal was £125k in the aggregate during your lifetime. Hence the lifetime gifts tax moniker.
Sorry, yes, exactly, thats the point. but the point remains, if it was per person, you could set up avoidance tranfers, so it must be from all sources.
Which then gives all manner of practical issues and problems.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Yes, they are the most redistributive of taxes, which is why the rich dislike them.
Inheritance taxes were a major driver of land reform in this country a century ago.
We’re not talking about the rich here. We’re talking about people owning average family detached homes.
£125k is an eye-wateringly tight limit. It’s less than the value of a semi-detached house here in Cannock, and barely more than May’s ‘dementia tax’ limit.
Proving value over a lifetime would also be a nightmare.
If Labour are going with this it could easily cost them every seat they hold south of the Humber.
It is £125 000 per recipient rather than per estate. A house being inherited by a couple of children and a few grandchildren would pay no IHT.
IHT in Ireland is taxed on the recipient (i.e. a "lifetime gift tax")and varies depending on the relationship. Zero between spouses. Generous to children. So there is a model to work on.
Donald Trump has claimed Boris Johnson as his bumbling, blond-haired mini-me from across the water. The U.K. Labour Party is doing all it can to push the same message ahead of next month’s general election, claiming there is a Trump-Johnson alliance at foot. Even Hillary Clinton has criticized the British prime minister for his refusal to publish a report into Russia’s involvement in the Brexit referendum.
And yet, by any serious audit of the two men and what they represent, it is not Boris Johnson who is Britain’s Trump. It’s Jeremy Corbyn.
Neither are that much like Trump, but there are elements of both which can be pretty close. People overdo it with with Boris because of the chaotic style, blond hair etc but that's superficial stuff.
However only one of them wishes to be allied with Trump, and is c!aimed by Trump as his protege.
Only one of them wishes to be allied with Putin, and it's not the same one.
Corbyn is a diddy, but the idea that he wishes to be 'allied' with Putin is also for diddies.
Well, of course he is suppressing a report into Russian election interference so that's a bit of a smoking gun.
Oh, wait. Its not Corbyn, it's that other chap. Name's slipping my mind.
Be fair. Boris was quoting the Bible: Genesis 38. What's wrong with that?
8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.
Donald Trump has claimed Boris Johnson as his bumbling, blond-haired mini-me from across the water. The U.K. Labour Party is doing all it can to push the same message ahead of next month’s general election, claiming there is a Trump-Johnson alliance at foot. Even Hillary Clinton has criticized the British prime minister for his refusal to publish a report into Russia’s involvement in the Brexit referendum.
And yet, by any serious audit of the two men and what they represent, it is not Boris Johnson who is Britain’s Trump. It’s Jeremy Corbyn.
Neither are that much like Trump, but there are elements of both which can be pretty close. People overdo it with with Boris because of the chaotic style, blond hair etc but that's superficial stuff.
However only one of them wishes to be allied with Trump, and is c!aimed by Trump as his protege.
Only one of them wishes to be allied with Putin, and it's not the same one.
Corbyn is a diddy, but the idea that he wishes to be 'allied' with Putin is also for diddies.
Well, of course he is suppressing a report into Russian election interference so that's a bit of a smoking gun.
Oh, wait. Its not Corbyn, it's that other chap. Name's slipping my mind.
The guy so unconcerned by criminal acts by Russians on British soil that he ducked out of a COBRA meeting on the subject to be photographed signing a letter?
So Islington granny sadly passes away leaving a £1m house to her only unmarried son. He pays 225k tax, keeps 775k for himself (0.2 × 375, and 0.3 x 500 as per resolution foundation proposal).
Whether that's reasonable or not depends on your point of view I guess, but i would note that previously he was going to pay 140k in tax (0.4 x 350k).
If granny had two recipients and 500k each, then the amount of tax would be similar under current scheme (150k vs 140k).
Be fair. Boris was quoting the Bible: Genesis 38. What's wrong with that?
8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.
Once upon a time, you had to pay tax in order to get probate in order to get your fingers on the money, because without probate the banks and stockbrokers and everybody else wouldn't give you a penny. These days, I don't see what stops you putting your financial assets into a lot of online accounts and leaving your beneficiaries little bundles consisting of passwords to the accounts and the associated email addresses, and a mobile phone with the number associated with the account. This puts them in a position to scoop the lot without troubling hmrc at all. I do wonder whether this is happening and what is being done about it.
That is a criminal offence and the Inland Revenue would not hesitate to prosecute
It's not a criminal offence to put your money anyplace you want to. The crime would be when the IHT declaration is done, or done incorrectly. However how a executor would be able to keep track of that is another issue.
Again another example of how the tax code is unfit for purpose in the modern era.
HMRC can easily see all your banking accounts aggregated. What is being suggested is probably possible through crypto or betting accounts but it would mean foregoing interest/dividends for the remaining lifetime of the recipient, losing FSCS protection and a high risk of bookmaker/crypto firm going bust and/or crypto prices collapsing.
i.e. It is only for those who would prefer to leave less to their relatives if it means paying less tax. Sounds like there are a few of those around on this site.
So Islington granny sadly passes away leaving a £1m house to her only unmarried son. He pays 225k tax, keeps 775k for himself (0.2 × 375, and 0.3 x 500 as per resolution foundation proposal).
Whether that's reasonable or not depends on your point of view I guess, but i would note that previously he was going to pay 140k in tax (0.4 x 350k).
If granny had two recipients and 500k each, then the amount of tax would be similar under current scheme (150k vs 140k).
Whether the rates and thresholds are reasonable are of far less concern to me than the ability of it to be enforced equally and fairly.
Once upon a time, you had to pay tax in order to get probate in order to get your fingers on the money, because without probate the banks and stockbrokers and everybody else wouldn't give you a penny. These days, I don't see what stops you putting your financial assets into a lot of online accounts and leaving your beneficiaries little bundles consisting of passwords to the accounts and the associated email addresses, and a mobile phone with the number associated with the account. This puts them in a position to scoop the lot without troubling hmrc at all. I do wonder whether this is happening and what is being done about it.
That is a criminal offence and the Inland Revenue would not hesitate to prosecute
It's not a criminal offence to put your money anyplace you want to. The crime would be when the IHT declaration is done, or done incorrectly. However how a executor would be able to keep track of that is another issue.
Again another example of how the tax code is unfit for purpose in the modern era.
HMRC can easily see all your banking accounts aggregated.
This is untrue. they may be able to see the existence of accounts, but not amounts in them, and not transactions in them.
It is pissing it down again in the desolate North, and we've got further flood warnings.
I'm hearing from Tory activists in West Yorkshire that the flood response combined with scrapping Northern rail upgrades/pumping billions into HS2/Crossrail this is feeding into a narrative that Boris Johnson and the Tories don't care about the North.
There's plenty of marginals in West Yorkshire, and if it does lead to Andrea Jenkyns losing then it'll be worth it.
Don't forget Philip Davies! I would love it if we can boot him out. But I'm not expecting it.
That's just dumb. Now when Boris makes a high brow quote not referencing wanking you will have to laud him. Which we know he does, so you are praising him.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Yes, they are the most redistributive of taxes, which is why the rich dislike them.
Inheritance taxes were a major driver of land reform in this country a century ago.
We’re not talking about the rich here. We’re talking about people owning average family detached homes.
£125k is an eye-wateringly tight limit. It’s less than the value of a semi-detached house here in Cannock, and barely more than May’s ‘dementia tax’ limit.
Proving value over a lifetime would also be a nightmare.
If Labour are going with this it could easily cost them every seat they hold south of the Humber.
It is £125 000 per recipient rather than per estate. A house being inherited by a couple of children and a few grandchildren would pay no IHT.
IHT in Ireland is taxed on the recipient (i.e. a "lifetime gift tax")and varies depending on the relationship. Zero between spouses. Generous to children. So there is a model to work on.
Once upon a time, you had to pay tax in order to get probate in order to get your fingers on the money, because without probate the banks and stockbrokers and everybody else wouldn't give you a penny. These days, I don't see what stops you putting your financial assets into a lot of online accounts and leaving your beneficiaries little bundles consisting of passwords to the accounts and the associated email addresses, and a mobile phone with the number associated with the account. This puts them in a position to scoop the lot without troubling hmrc at all. I do wonder whether this is happening and what is being done about it.
Or bitcoin, for those with more technical aptitude and higher risk tolerances.
Whose name are your hypothetical online accounts in; donor or recipient? Either way it creates a paper trail which HMRC could follow, if it wished.
Might be easier to just convert cash into high end jewellery, put it in a bank safety deposit box and let your kids know where you keep the key.
What is the margin on high end jewellery (i.e. buying retail selling privately)? How much interest does it pay over your remaining lifetime?
I doubt many people would be saving much!
It pays marginally less interest than your high street bank account.
I dunno, I'm not advocating this (criminal) idea. Pick an asset class that might appreciate. Fine art? Wine?
Excellent news, hes not turned completely away from his Remain stance after all.
Whole thing seems a bit pointless really for him. He's destroyed his credibility in being able to claim they are fighting everywhere as a national party and deserve equal airtime etc, yet if he stands in those marginals he is still doing more net damage to the Tories than helping them. It seems like there has been more of a grassroots backlash to his initial decision to stand down even if donors at the top pressured him to do so. He's given he message that voting brexit party can stop brexit, so he's highly unlikely to actually win in those labour leave seats now.
One parent passes away and leaves their child £125k to get on the property ladder without falling foul of the taxman. Next year for his birthday, the son gets £50 in a card from the other parent and a bill for £20 from the revenue. Nice.
Of all the stupid criticisms of Johnson possible, accusing him of not sufficiently quoting obscure historical figures has to be the dumbest. He literally does all the bloody time, and gets routinely criticised for it.
Once upon a time, you had to pay tax in order to get probate in order to get your fingers on the money, because without probate the banks and stockbrokers and everybody else wouldn't give you a penny. These days, I don't see what stops you putting your financial assets into a lot of online accounts and leaving your beneficiaries little bundles consisting of passwords to the accounts and the associated email addresses, and a mobile phone with the number associated with the account. This puts them in a position to scoop the lot without troubling hmrc at all. I do wonder whether this is happening and what is being done about it.
That is a criminal offence and the Inland Revenue would not hesitate to prosecute
It's not a criminal offence to put your money anyplace you want to. The crime would be when the IHT declaration is done, or done incorrectly. However how a executor would be able to keep track of that is another issue.
Again another example of how the tax code is unfit for purpose in the modern era.
HMRC can easily see all your banking accounts aggregated.
This is untrue. they may be able to see the existence of accounts, but not amounts in them, and not transactions in them.
So Islington granny sadly passes away leaving a £1m house to her only unmarried son. He pays 225k tax, keeps 775k for himself (0.2 × 375, and 0.3 x 500 as per resolution foundation proposal).
Whether that's reasonable or not depends on your point of view I guess, but i would note that previously he was going to pay 140k in tax (0.4 x 350k).
If granny had two recipients and 500k each, then the amount of tax would be similar under current scheme (150k vs 140k).
Whether the rates and thresholds are reasonable are of far less concern to me than the ability of it to be enforced equally and fairly.
The current system is much more of a mess in that regard with gifts and tapering and trusts...
Mr. Eagles, it's interesting how Thermopylae has such a high reputation it's often seen as a victory.
Tactically, it clearly wasn't. But strategically, it gave the Greek city states the chance of defeating the Persians.
Well we only have the Greek side of the story. The Persian report could well have read -
Successful campaign. Demonstrated size of our army. A few minor engagements, in one of which a Greek king was killed.
'Truth-loving Persians do not dwell upon The trivial skirmish fought near Marathon. As for the Greek theatrical tradition Which represents that summer's expedition Not as a mere reconnaisance in force By three brigades of foot and one of horse (Their left flank covered by some obsolete Light craft detached from the main Persian fleet) But as a grandiose, ill-starred attempt To conquer Greece - they treat it with contempt; And only incidentally refute Major Greek claims, by stressing what repute The Persian monarch and the Persian nation Won by this salutary demonstration: Despite a strong defence and adverse weather All arms combined magnificently together. '
One parent passes away and leaves their child £125k to get on the property ladder without falling foul of the taxman. Next year for his birthday, the son gets £50 in a card from the other parent and a bill for £20 from the revenue. Nice.
Under the IPPR proposal gifts below a certain amount would not count.
Excellent news, hes not turned completely away from his Remain stance after all.
Whole thing seems a bit pointless really for him. He's destroyed his credibility in being able to claim they are fighting everywhere as a national party and deserve equal airtime etc, yet if he stands in those marginals he is still doing more net damage to the Tories than helping them. It seems like there has been more of a grassroots backlash to his initial decision to stand down even if donors at the top pressured him to do so. He's given he message that voting brexit party can stop brexit, so he's highly unlikely to actually win in those labour leave seats now.
All of his actions are easily explained once you accept he’s an attention whore.
One parent passes away and leaves their child £125k to get on the property ladder without falling foul of the taxman. Next year for his birthday, the son gets £50 in a card from the other parent and a bill for £20 from the revenue. Nice.
Gifts below an amount would be exempt and no need to report. I think it's currently £3k.
The worst of the flooding was West of Sheffield this time. The Don through Sheffield did ultimately flood by evening, but the Rother, Dearne, and a sizeable brook that runs north along the M1 from Meadowhall were already flooding by late morning, and thus the water was delivered into the lower Don area around Doncaster much more quickly and coherently.
This maps pretty much all of the South Yorkshire / Hallamshire Brexit marginals which have all been affected to some degree, Don Valley, Rother Valley, Derbs NE, Chesterfield, Bolsover, Bassetlaw etc. For sure a small number of these seats will have different results because of this and a handful of other places - Carlisle, Calder Valley, Portsmouth S will be watching quite keenly.
Could cost Boris 2-4 seats quite directly I'd think.
Hes standing down so it's fine but it's true that people typically love interventions from those they like without acknowledging they hate it from those they dislike (unless they think the latter helps).
Of all the stupid criticisms of Johnson possible, accusing him of not sufficiently quoting obscure historical figures has to be the dumbest. He literally does all the bloody time, and gets routinely criticised for it.
Exactly. I dislike the man, but that criticism really is either knowingly phoney or truly a sign that people are letting their dislike lead them to ridiculousness.
One parent passes away and leaves their child £125k to get on the property ladder without falling foul of the taxman. Next year for his birthday, the son gets £50 in a card from the other parent and a bill for £20 from the revenue. Nice.
Gifts below an amount would be exempt and no need to report. I think it's currently £3k.
Its currently £250 or 3 grand a year, or gifts from disposable income, yes. I'm sure labour wouldn't think of stopping these and replacing them with something utterly ridiculous. On a more serious note, it will force the sale of family homes, it will massively overheat the London Property market and it will be as popular as the plague. Reverse Osborne 2007.
Once upon a time, you had to pay tax in order to get probate in order to get your fingers on the money, because without probate the banks and stockbrokers and everybody else wouldn't give you a penny. These days, I don't see what stops you putting your financial assets into a lot of online accounts and leaving your beneficiaries little bundles consisting of passwords to the accounts and the associated email addresses, and a mobile phone with the number associated with the account. This puts them in a position to scoop the lot without troubling hmrc at all. I do wonder whether this is happening and what is being done about it.
That is a criminal offence and the Inland Revenue would not hesitate to prosecute
It's not a criminal offence to put your money anyplace you want to. The crime would be when the IHT declaration is done, or done incorrectly. However how a executor would be able to keep track of that is another issue.
Again another example of how the tax code is unfit for purpose in the modern era.
HMRC can easily see all your banking accounts aggregated.
This is untrue. they may be able to see the existence of accounts, but not amounts in them, and not transactions in them.
If they can see interest paid, and the account interest rate, both of which they can, then they can calculate balances.
That's fundamentally different and you know it. You're simply wrong. HMRC have no rights to look into peoples affairs outside of investigations and enquiries, and they don't.
They can request/demand access to information in the course of the investigation, but outside they, they have no rights in accessing bank account details other than existence, and the information banks have to provide in terms of interest etc.
What the “lifetime allowance” does is prevent people from giving gifts to their children in their lifetime. Currently records only need to be kept for 7 years (I believe) for inheritance tax details. God know how a lifetime allowance would work admistratively. Would every single gift (or benefiting kind???) above a certain amount from birth have to be reported to HMRC, with threat of jail (for tax fraud)if not done so? And this would have to be done by everyone because you never know when you might be the unexpected beneficiary of an inheritance windfall in future.
That was a thought I had as well. But another one is, would you tax the value at the time of the gift, or at the time of death? Because for many people in their seventies that’s would make a huge difference.
I’m not sure whether the “lifetime” applies to the donor or the recipient. If the latter you presumably tax it as you go along, so the value at the gift when the donor dies is irrelevant. It’s not an inheritance tax at all, it’s just a gift tax. If it all relates to the donor then you create scenarios where somebody gets gifts early on in life (say parents putting money into a university fund, or towards a house). By the time of the donors death, the recipient will quite likely find themselves with no means to pay whatever tax comes their way.
Effectively it’s just treated as income in the period it is received
And every individual in the country receiving a gift from any source has to fill in a tax return. Because one day, an accumulation of gifts may breach the threshold.
Well yes, exactly. Also what constitutes a 'gift'. Birthday presents? Paying for a holiday, or providing accommodation, or paying for shopping or a meal out?
Does the gift start at birth? So do 1 year olds have to declare gifts, or would grandparents have to fill out a tax form with their birthday cards?
If a parent did a round of shopping for £100 once a month, thats £1,200 per year... would there be tax to pay on that, and how would it be administrated.
Is this retrospective (answer no...) so how would transition be accounted for?
These are all questions that have to be considered with the current IHT rules with the difference that with the current rules you don't know which gifts you have to record until the donor dies (thus setting the date for the seven year period). It doesn't cause problems currently, why would it with the change?
One parent passes away and leaves their child £125k to get on the property ladder without falling foul of the taxman. Next year for his birthday, the son gets £50 in a card from the other parent and a bill for £20 from the revenue. Nice.
Gifts below an amount would be exempt and no need to report. I think it's currently £3k.
Its currently £250 or 3 grand a year, or gifts from disposable income, yes. I'm sure labour wouldn't think of stopping these and replacing them with something utterly ridiculous. On a more serious note, it will force the sale of family homes, it will massively overheat the London Property market and it will be as popular as the plague. Reverse Osborne 2007.
"force the sale of family homes" and "overheat the London property market" these two things seem contradictory to me. Surely increasing supply will cool price inflation?
That's just dumb. Now when Boris makes a high brow quote not referencing wanking you will have to laud him. Which we know he does, so you are praising him.
Care to dig up a high brow quote from Johnson? I have been looking forward to them, but they don't seem to be materialising. I think his handlers have got to him.
What the “lifetime allowance” does is prevent people from giving gifts to their children in their lifetime. Currently records only need to be kept for 7 years (I believe) for inheritance tax details. God know how a lifetime allowance would work admistratively. Would every single gift (or benefiting kind???) above a certain amount from birth have to be reported to HMRC, with threat of jail (for tax fraud)if not done so? And this would have to be done by everyone because you never know when you might be the unexpected beneficiary of an inheritance windfall in future.
That was a thought I had as well. But another one is, would you tax the value at the time of the gift, or at the time of death? Because for many people in their seventies that’s would make a huge difference.
I’m not sure whether the “lifetime” applies to the donor or the recipient. If the latter you presumably tax it as you go along, so the value at the gift when the donor dies is irrelevant. It’s not an inheritance tax at all, it’s just a gift tax. If it all relates to the donor then you create scenarios where somebody gets gifts early on in life (say parents putting money into a university fund, or towards a house). By the time of the donors death, the recipient will quite likely find themselves with no means to pay whatever tax comes their way.
Effectively it’s just treated as income in the period it is received
And every individual in the country receiving a gift from any source has to fill in a tax return. Because one day, an accumulation of gifts may breach the threshold.
Well yes, exactly. Also what constitutes a 'gift'. Birthday presents? Paying for a holiday, or providing accommodation, or paying for shopping or a meal out?
Does the gift start at birth? So do 1 year olds have to declare gifts, or would grandparents have to fill out a tax form with their birthday cards?
If a parent did a round of shopping for £100 once a month, thats £1,200 per year... would there be tax to pay on that, and how would it be administrated.
Is this retrospective (answer no...) so how would transition be accounted for?
These are all questions that have to be considered with the current IHT rules with the difference that with the current rules you don't know which gifts you have to record until the donor dies (thus setting the date for the seven year period). It doesn't cause problems currently, why would it with the change?
Lib Dems seem to be heading for an existential crisis in the middle of this campaign. Conflicting messages from various MPs, Candidates and Swinson herself.
What is the number one priority for them? Stop Brexit Stop Johnson Stop Corbyn
Unless they win a majority they can't do all 3.
Their entire messaging and the bulk of the new voters has been linked mostly to Stop Brexit. Yet Swinson is now saying she would prefer a second election to putting Corbyn in. Of course most of her target voters are ex tories but I simply struggle to see what alternative she realistically has to allowing Corbyn in, in some way. If she forces a second election when she had the chance to get ref2, she will lose all her stop brexit voters. It would be madness to force a second election if there is a hung parliament, utter madness. She will not win a majority in that second election so how can it possibly improve her position. I fear she has overdone her anti Labour pitch to the point she no longer can back down.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Please explain how this works @Charles. You seem be implying that unless people inherit a wedge of money from their family they will be queuing up to try to claim Universal Credit.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Should help drive quite a few rich Southern Remainers back to the Tories. Nice.
To the LibDems, not the Tories
I'm sorry but £125,000 IHT threshold will hit in strong LEAVE areas as well as the south.
And even if people dont pay it destroys aspiration. If the left and Labour can't see how bad a policy this is then more fool them
People here are so out of touch. This is a bad bad policy and is this years dementia tax times 100
One parent passes away and leaves their child £125k to get on the property ladder without falling foul of the taxman. Next year for his birthday, the son gets £50 in a card from the other parent and a bill for £20 from the revenue. Nice.
Gifts below an amount would be exempt and no need to report. I think it's currently £3k.
Its currently £250 or 3 grand a year, or gifts from disposable income, yes. I'm sure labour wouldn't think of stopping these and replacing them with something utterly ridiculous. On a more serious note, it will force the sale of family homes, it will massively overheat the London Property market and it will be as popular as the plague. Reverse Osborne 2007.
"force the sale of family homes" and "overheat the London property market" these two things seem contradictory to me. Surely increasing supply will cool price inflation?
I'd have thought the flood of property would stoke further sales/ladder climbing through the market. I guess it depends on when the tax is demanded - on title transfer (so lower offers might be taken in desperation) or on sale (wait for a big offer on cherished family home) Popular as the plague though whichever route one follows
Donald Tusk clearly has a soft-spot for the UK but is too emotionally invested in the European project, affirmed through his own personal (impressive) backstory, to view the issue with the objectivity and detachment needed to make progress on Brexit.
It’s noteworthy he was asked numerous times, “why is the UK doing this?” but was totally unable to answer it. The only attempt being some tangential references to loss of Empire around the edges. In itself that’s very telling because that’s precisely the sort of answer you get from ardent Remainers who he’ll be mixing with almost universally.
He has repeatedly been tone-deaf to how he comes across to Leavers and lacked (and still lacks) the emotional intelligence to engage with them convincingly.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Should help drive quite a few rich Southern Remainers back to the Tories. Nice.
To the LibDems, not the Tories
I'm sorry but £125,000 IHT threshold will hit in strong LEAVE areas as well as the south.
And even if people dont pay it destroys aspiration. If the left and Labour can't see how bad a policy this is then more fool them
People here are so out of touch. This is a bad bad policy and is this years dementia tax times 100
Yep, raising the threshold, or rather promising to, single handedly broke the Brown bounce in 2007 when Osborne proposed it.
The military point is moot as long as NATO endures. Which might not be that much longer, I grant...
It’s certainly not moot. The UK provides the European continent with about 25% of its weight and punch, even without the USA.
It’s possibly an exclusively “European NATO” could evolve over time. Where that may fall down is the ideological federalists insisting that the institutions of the EU are used to control it, rather than a bespoke defence treaty amongst sovereign nation states.
Donald Tusk clearly has a soft-spot for the UK but is too emotionally invested in the European project, affirmed through his own personal (impressive) backstory, to view the issue with the objectivity and detachment needed to make progress on Brexit.
It’s noteworthy he was asked numerous times, “why is the UK doing this?” but was totally unable to answer it. The only attempt being some tangential references to loss of Empire around the edges. In itself that’s very telling because that’s precisely the sort of answer you get from ardent Remainers who he’ll be mixing with almost universally.
He has repeatedly been tone-deaf to how he comes across to Leavers and lacked (and still lacks) the emotional intelligence to engage with them convincingly.
Leavers have no answer other than overwhelming splenetic irrational dislike of the EU. Their lack of answer is demonstrated by their continuing inability to suggest any positive way forward. No wonder the country has increasingly concluded that Brexit was a mistake.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Should help drive quite a few rich Southern Remainers back to the Tories. Nice.
To the LibDems, not the Tories
I'm sorry but £125,000 IHT threshold will hit in strong LEAVE areas as well as the south.
And even if people dont pay it destroys aspiration. If the left and Labour can't see how bad a policy this is then more fool them
People here are so out of touch. This is a bad bad policy and is this years dementia tax times 100
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Please explain how this works @Charles. You seem be implying that unless people inherit a wedge of money from their family they will be queuing up to try to claim Universal Credit.
I'm a liberal and I think inheritance taxes are essential. Fundamentally, consumerist capitalism works by delivering people's wants and needs because their spending patterns are signals to the market to supply what's wanted. This does not work when huge numbers of people are in grinding poverty. It also fails when you have huge wealth inequalities. The market chases the money. Because wealth grows more wealth, there has to be a finger on the scales somewhere to prevent it all from pooling in the hands of the few, the very few, and eventually a tiny elite. Where do you apply that tap? It's either on the holding of wealth, or on its transfer. Seems to me the best way is to tax the transfer after death, since the person who actually earned it has reached the end of their ability to enjoy it. Rather than pulling the rug out from under those who have earned their wealth.
And if you don't think either wealth or wealth transfer should be taxed, I'd be fascinated to hear how you think capitalism can continue when the number of people with zero disposable income drifts towards a majority. How do you prevent those many people voting to tip the entire table over, or, even worse, it happening outside of the democratic process? Genuinely interested to hear an answer to this question.
It is pissing it down again in the desolate North, and we've got further flood warnings.
I'm hearing from Tory activists in West Yorkshire that the flood response combined with scrapping Northern rail upgrades/pumping billions into HS2/Crossrail this is feeding into a narrative that Boris Johnson and the Tories don't care about the North.
There's plenty of marginals in West Yorkshire, and if it does lead to Andrea Jenkyns losing then it'll be worth it.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Should help drive quite a few rich Southern Remainers back to the Tories. Nice.
To the LibDems, not the Tories
I'm sorry but £125,000 IHT threshold will hit in strong LEAVE areas as well as the south.
And even if people dont pay it destroys aspiration. If the left and Labour can't see how bad a policy this is then more fool them
People here are so out of touch. This is a bad bad policy and is this years dementia tax times 100
How does increasing IHT destroy aspiration?
I'd have thought it was quite the opposite in many cases. If I thought I was going to inherit a huge lump sum when my parents died would I have worked hard all my life to be self-sufficiently comfortable in my old age?
It is pissing it down again in the desolate North, and we've got further flood warnings.
I'm hearing from Tory activists in West Yorkshire that the flood response combined with scrapping Northern rail upgrades/pumping billions into HS2/Crossrail this is feeding into a narrative that Boris Johnson and the Tories don't care about the North.
There's plenty of marginals in West Yorkshire, and if it does lead to Andrea Jenkyns losing then it'll be worth it.
No your hoping as a LD voter that is the case
Is this the kind of forum where pointing our that should be "you're" is a applause line, or hanging offence? Because I'm doing it either way...
Bad luck for Johnson maybe. BUT with flooding now an almost predictable annual hazard of a changing climate, and Yorkshire known to be vulnerable, he might at least have thought about what he'd do about flooding in Yorkshire during an election campaign he'd set up. His record on being slow to act, what with his being incompetent on the empathy front, may have prevented him and his friends from so much as thinking there was a chance of flooding.
Comments
Free market conservatives should be applauding the removal of the subsidies and anything that will bring wages back in line with house prices. That is rewarding hard work and effort which is what I understood the conservatives to stand for until recently.
Does the gift start at birth? So do 1 year olds have to declare gifts, or would grandparents have to fill out a tax form with their birthday cards?
If a parent did a round of shopping for £100 once a month, thats £1,200 per year... would there be tax to pay on that, and how would it be administrated.
Is this retrospective (answer no...) so how would transition be accounted for?
Tactically, it clearly wasn't. But strategically, it gave the Greek city states the chance of defeating the Persians.
I doubt many people would be saving much!
The increases in succession tax toward the end of the 19th C and early 20th C contributed to the demise of the aristocracy and the end of the Downton Abbey world in which so many in our country were condemned to live less than a hundred years ago.
Which then gives all manner of practical issues and problems.
https://www.revenue.ie/en/gains-gifts-and-inheritance/cat-thresholds-rates-and-aggregation-rules/cat-thresholds.aspx
Oh, wait. Its not Corbyn, it's that other chap. Name's slipping my mind.
8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.
He pays 225k tax, keeps 775k for himself (0.2 × 375, and 0.3 x 500 as per resolution foundation proposal).
Whether that's reasonable or not depends on your point of view I guess, but i would note that previously he was going to pay 140k in tax (0.4 x 350k).
If granny had two recipients and 500k each, then the amount of tax would be similar under current scheme (150k vs 140k).
i.e. It is only for those who would prefer to leave less to their relatives if it means paying less tax. Sounds like there are a few of those around on this site.
Tusk and Davis? No comparison.
Successful campaign. Demonstrated size of our army. A few minor engagements, in one of which a Greek king was killed.
I dunno, I'm not advocating this (criminal) idea. Pick an asset class that might appreciate. Fine art? Wine?
If they can see interest paid, and the account interest rate, both of which they can, then they can calculate balances.
The trivial skirmish fought near Marathon.
As for the Greek theatrical tradition
Which represents that summer's expedition
Not as a mere reconnaisance in force
By three brigades of foot and one of horse
(Their left flank covered by some obsolete
Light craft detached from the main Persian fleet)
But as a grandiose, ill-starred attempt
To conquer Greece - they treat it with contempt;
And only incidentally refute
Major Greek claims, by stressing what repute
The Persian monarch and the Persian nation
Won by this salutary demonstration:
Despite a strong defence and adverse weather
All arms combined magnificently together. '
This maps pretty much all of the South Yorkshire / Hallamshire Brexit marginals which have all been affected to some degree, Don Valley, Rother Valley, Derbs NE, Chesterfield, Bolsover, Bassetlaw etc. For sure a small number of these seats will have different results because of this and a handful of other places - Carlisle, Calder Valley, Portsmouth S will be watching quite keenly.
Could cost Boris 2-4 seats quite directly I'd think.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/1194908018510630912?s=20
Either way its very lame.
On a more serious note, it will force the sale of family homes, it will massively overheat the London Property market and it will be as popular as the plague. Reverse Osborne 2007.
They can request/demand access to information in the course of the investigation, but outside they, they have no rights in accessing bank account details other than existence, and the information banks have to provide in terms of interest etc.
these two things seem contradictory to me. Surely increasing supply will cool price inflation?
What is the number one priority for them?
Stop Brexit
Stop Johnson
Stop Corbyn
Unless they win a majority they can't do all 3.
Their entire messaging and the bulk of the new voters has been linked mostly to Stop Brexit. Yet Swinson is now saying she would prefer a second election to putting Corbyn in. Of course most of her target voters are ex tories but I simply struggle to see what alternative she realistically has to allowing Corbyn in, in some way. If she forces a second election when she had the chance to get ref2, she will lose all her stop brexit voters. It would be madness to force a second election if there is a hung parliament, utter madness. She will not win a majority in that second election so how can it possibly improve her position. I fear she has overdone her anti Labour pitch to the point she no longer can back down.
And even if people dont pay it destroys aspiration. If the left and Labour can't see how bad a policy this is then more fool them
People here are so out of touch. This is a bad bad policy and is this years dementia tax times 100
Why has no one made that point before, I wonder?
Popular as the plague though whichever route one follows
It’s noteworthy he was asked numerous times, “why is the UK doing this?” but was totally unable to answer it. The only attempt being some tangential references to loss of Empire around the edges. In itself that’s very telling because that’s precisely the sort of answer you get from ardent Remainers who he’ll be mixing with almost universally.
He has repeatedly been tone-deaf to how he comes across to Leavers and lacked (and still lacks) the emotional intelligence to engage with them convincingly.
It’s possibly an exclusively “European NATO” could evolve over time. Where that may fall down is the ideological federalists insisting that the institutions of the EU are used to control it, rather than a bespoke defence treaty amongst sovereign nation states.
Fundamentally, consumerist capitalism works by delivering people's wants and needs because their spending patterns are signals to the market to supply what's wanted.
This does not work when huge numbers of people are in grinding poverty. It also fails when you have huge wealth inequalities. The market chases the money.
Because wealth grows more wealth, there has to be a finger on the scales somewhere to prevent it all from pooling in the hands of the few, the very few, and eventually a tiny elite. Where do you apply that tap? It's either on the holding of wealth, or on its transfer. Seems to me the best way is to tax the transfer after death, since the person who actually earned it has reached the end of their ability to enjoy it. Rather than pulling the rug out from under those who have earned their wealth.
And if you don't think either wealth or wealth transfer should be taxed, I'd be fascinated to hear how you think capitalism can continue when the number of people with zero disposable income drifts towards a majority. How do you prevent those many people voting to tip the entire table over, or, even worse, it happening outside of the democratic process? Genuinely interested to hear an answer to this question.
Average Tory lead 28 days ahead of GE17 = 17%
I'd have thought it was quite the opposite in many cases. If I thought I was going to inherit a huge lump sum when my parents died would I have worked hard all my life to be self-sufficiently comfortable in my old age?