Birthday Gifts 50 Year Old
Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:09:19 +0000
R.I.P. APACHE
Apache was the man, yo. I loved that song “Gangsta B***h” from back in the days. Man…death SUCKS! What’s really dope is that Apache had done his thing in the streets, but he had also found God too. And that’s really dope. He also did a lot of things and, I heard wrote “U.N.I.T.Y.” for Latifah… (Remember her saying “Who you callin’ a b***h?”) There was a lot of irony. While nothing formal has been announced about how Apache died, my sources say it was heart complications. Shout out to Apache!
Somebody from the staff brought this to my attention,the similarities to Apache's "Gangsta B***h" and Biggie's "Me & My B***h."
Biggie:
Apache:
Both are dope, no hate.
NO SHYNE / ROYCE BEEF
Just to be 100% clear – there is no beef with Shyne and Royce da 5’9”…I think I said that. But, I wasn’t 100% clear at that time…I was like 99.9%. It was a clown pretending to be Shyne and Royce was talking to him…for entertainment purposes. That’s all – bye.
Wait...that's not all.
Shyne is also working with Swizz Beatz on his new album. That’s Storch and Swizz. Not bad.
ILLSEED’S QUICKIES
Trey Songz may need to do some PR like Ne-Yo did a few years ago. These bi-sexual rumors are running wild.
Some steroids dealer died, but before he passed he alleged that Mike Vick used ‘roids when he played for the Atlanta Falcons. Shout out to the homey - gunot_17!
Nas’s collab album with Damian Marley has been pushed back.
Remember that American Basketball League? The one with no Blacks allowed? Well, the weird irony is that Blacks can OWN an all White-team, but cannot be players. This is a stupid joke.Tiger Woods has smartened up. Now they are using decoys outside of a sex rehab facility.
Now they are suggesting the either Jamie Foxx or Madonna may replace Simon. OH BOY.
JAY-Z CONFUSES BEYONCE AND RIHANNA?
It was almost torturous watching this video, but there’s a moment of humor when Jay-Z seemingly confuses Rihanna and Beyonce.
EPIC FAIL OF THE DAY
There is some fail in there, but I’m not going to say who. This lady named Mia Landingham and her man used to fight all the time and she just got sick of it. What did she do? Before I say that, I want to tell you. Investigators say the victim, her man, was 5'10" tall and weighed 126 pounds but Landingham is 5'9" tall and weighed over 300. Po pop says for some reason, she sat on dude and he suffocated to death. She’s not even going to do any time, but she’s got three years probation. At this time, she weighs over 350 pounds. Where is the fail? There’s a fail in there.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THESE DUDES?
JAY& B IN FRANCE
I hope B didn’t giveJay any issues over the RiRi slip up!
KEYSHIA COLE DID THE RIGHT THING
What the hell!?
THEN AGAIN!
It looks like Frankie could be a motivational speaker for crackheads. Real talk…look at this video!
SORRY!
Hey, some days there just isn’t much happening. Email me. Let us make the rumors a better place. allhiphoprumors@gmail.com.
ian - Totally Agree
11:10 | 24 Jan 2010
I totally agree with this article. My parent has a house worth £200K and £200 in cash. The parent has made no IHT PETs and will not live for a further 7 Years. I am told also that as my deceased parent died in 1973 that there is no £325 allowance to transfer on as it was not IHT then it was Estate Duty
Therefore I suppose that the liabillity is (400K-325K) 40% of 75K = £30,000 to the tax man.
My parent has not been financially savy and has not made any PETs. As she has only a short time to live, I think there is nothing else to be done but hope that Conservatives get in and increase the theshold. But they are just electioneeering and will not make the change anytime soon!
ronald jones - IHT
11:23 | 24 Jan 2010
Ian,
As you have stated the IHT liability could be circa £30k, have you thought about taking out a 7 year diminishing IHT insurance protection policy. These are specially designed to meet a IHT tax liability on a 7 year diminishing scale. for years 1-3 100% of the insured amount (say your £30K) would be paid, for year 4 it would reduce to 80%, year 5 it would reduce to 60%, year 6 it would reduce to 40%, year 7 reduce to 20%. and for the year 8 nil.
These are specifically designed to align with PETS, hence it would be based on your parents age etc, it might cost high, put if your parent dies within the 7 year eriod you should have to offset the IHT liability. It is worth considering.
Ronnie - Layabout society
11:37 | 24 Jan 2010
The unfairness of this tax for hard working citizens has been well documented on this site in recent weeks.
We're encouraging a parasite culture where
everything is provided to those who can't be bothered to get out of bed.
Heard the latest.....possibly free computers and broadband to such individuals.
I'm going to blow my cash,go 'on the sick',
get a council flat and all the rest.......too numerous to bore you all with!
Now where did I put my one way flight ticket!?
Geoff B. - What's the alternative?
11:39 | 24 Jan 2010
Let's be honest - inheritance tax is NOT a tax on the couple with the four or five hundred thousand pound house etc etc - it's a tax on their heirs.
If the Government can't collect tax from me when I'm dead, they'll take it off me while I'm alive - via Income Tax, Capital Gains, VAT or some new form of tax.
Which do I prefer - to be taxed while I'm alive or when I'm dead - guess!
D D
11:50 | 24 Jan 2010
Because our society has made such a mess of our nations wealth, that we are told that our cldren and grandchildren will be paying to clean up the mess for at least a generation, if not more.
When the second spouse passes away, they have no further need for their wealth. IHT therefore is a macro method of passing wealth to the nation, to enhance the life of our offspring.
The wealth of deceased middle class is being predominantly held in the value of overpriced bricks and mortar (which dead people don't need), and with our offspring not being able to afford to buy homes and to rear their own children, IHT seems to be a solution.
OK, this inclines me in favour of IHT, but would definitely be stronly in favour of much reduced rates IF THE DECEASED PERSON LEFT ALL THEIR ESTATE TO THEIR GRANDCHILDREN.
Geoffrey - Inheritance Tax
12:10 | 24 Jan 2010
Labour is desperate to recover, by any means, the money it wasted since it was elected. I always knew that Labour's main achievement whenever it is in office is to wreck the economy and in this respect, the present government has excelled, beyond my wildest expectations. Gordon Brown thinks the middle class will always cough up more money, but he has practically skinned us with his devious, deceitful, dishonest tax legislation. He will be safe with a gold-plated civil service pension that we can only dream of, and will be paying for. What a reward for his utter failure. If he had been in a real job, where you have to make a profit and show a positive cash flow, year on year, he would have been sacked years ago and would be unemployable and on the dole. My advice to young people is "leave the UK or you will be paying for Brown's recklessness for your entire working lives". Although retired, I do not want my hard-earned savings squandered by this or any other government, so I am planning to leave this country before they take my own money from me and waste it.
don't blame broon - layabout society
12:22 | 24 Jan 2010
M y heart bleeds for you all maybe you are the parasites who have made fortunes out of the hard work of others.
And don't think ordinary people should have a decent wage incidentally people who can't afford a pension.
Could you lot out of £5 an hour .
White Rabbit - Inheritance & Reality
12:32 | 24 Jan 2010
There is no such thing as a fair settlement.
Only, legal, impartial, logical solutions.
The system we have at the moment is not (in my opinion) unduly discriminatory.
Why should anyone object to foregoing £30,000, when they will receive £370,000, free gratis?
Why encumber yourself with complicated trusts, insurance policies, financial advisers fees, indeterminate solicitors fees, and an increased and indeterminate time before the residue of the deceased is paid out?
Keep it simple, pay up, and laugh all the way to the bank.
As regards those who stand to leave behind £millions, I agree some professional planning is needed, but at the end of the day the government must safeguard against a situation developing whereby the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, otherwise madam guillotine will by brought out from retirement.
Also I wish the professions involved would not peddle there wares to people who do not need inheritance tax planning. i.e. 97% of the population. The advice given to me has always been: "Leave it in trust for umpteen years with the executors free to do as they think fit , and with definitive directions that they will not be held to account if the beneficiaries end up with nothing.
NUMPTY BASHER - WHY?
12:45 | 24 Jan 2010
Slightly off topic -
Why do the so called NUMPTY classes think they have an absolute right to be handed money by those more clever , more hard working and more sensible
Some are genuinely in need and in the case of genuine sickness etc I have no probem in handing out benefits but many of these feckless and useless members of society deserve b.......r all in my book
As for comments about the middle classes being parasites well that may be true of a few but they dont come close to the parasitic numpties who sponge off the rest of us without a crumb of conscience - it is "their right" after all New Labour have convinced them of that -To be honest I despair
don't blame broon - numpty bashing
13:19 | 24 Jan 2010
Does it take a numpty to know a numpty.?
ian - IHT
13:40 | 24 Jan 2010
Are you sure about excluding your deceased parent's claim of £325k less any legacies they willed?
First thing the goverment in waiting should do is agree thet £350k will be the limit for next tax year, that gives impression of getting to £1m.
It would be a fool who thought they were bgoing to introduce £1m at the drop of a hat, surely?
George Tomlinson - Try this,Tim
13:48 | 24 Jan 2010
You could do ,as we did ,and come to live in Portugal where the Government abolished Inheritance tax within the family.You can leave all your money to,grandparents,parents,children,grandchildren without lossThere is a price to pay,you have to move here lock,stock and barrel to live in and warm,friendly,efficient ,beautiful country where British are the Portuguese oldest friends,where taxation is much lighter and property well affordable.
Seems worth a look to our downtrodden middle classes.
ian - To Ronald Jones
14:50 | 24 Jan 2010
Response to ronald
My parent is 90 years old 91 in July 10. She has COPD (cronic obstructive pulmanary decease) and Dementia.
I understand the 3yr 20%,4 yr 60% ect in PETs , but have never been told about an insurance plan.
Given above do you think she will be qualify? Kindly explain More, Thanks for the reply.
Antony Atkin - Phased approach doesn't work
15:09 | 24 Jan 2010
It is not true that if give your assets away(Potentially Exempt Transfers) & survive 7 years, then this guarantees your heirs will not have to pay IHT. If one of your PETS fails(ie you leave this mortal coil) within the 7 year period, the Revenue then go back a further 7 years from the date of death & include any PETS within that period in the IHT net.
So adopting a phased approach to giving away your wealth in order to avoid this iniquitous tax is very risky.
ian - Response to comments
15:10 | 24 Jan 2010
To White Rabbit.
Yes of course £400K and paying 30K you may say is ok, but why?
The person saved for her old age, paid her taxes throughout life, then paid taxes on her savings, and now gets around 2% interest on her savings.
She would have been beter off to spend it, as she had it and go to a care home and live there for free. If she went to said care home now she would pay £400pw (£20,000pa aprox) with no NHI allowance as she does not qualify for nursing. She would be paying for the 4 out of 5 others that are not paying!( paying through your taxes) The care manager would love to see her go to a care home, it would tick all her boxes.
Also yes my father died in 1973 and at that time it was Estate Duty (£15K!) and there was no IHT allowance no £325K allowance.
don't blame broon - ian mother as well spending it
16:51 | 24 Jan 2010
She had so much money she couldn't spend it.
Thats what inheritance tax is about redistribution of wealth she couldn't spend it but the government could.
Could you tell me the definition of hard work there are alot of people work hard who can't even afford a pension Millions
White Rabbit - Ian's Dilema.
17:29 | 24 Jan 2010
I think Ian is placing too much importance on IHT planning and not enough on nursing home care for his mother.
Money is not everything; a peaceful existence is more desirable.
If you have the money to pay, you do have a degree of flexibility as to which nursing home is selected. If you rely on benefits, you would have to accept whichever establishment the council saw fit to allocate, some of which leave much to be desired.
I believe the average stay in a nursing home is around eighteen months. But say in Ian's mother's case it was five years, it would mean a total bill of 100 grand at today's prices. Thats a lot of bread, but the consolation is that it would bring the estate below the IHT threshold.
Ian - Response to dont blame ' BROON'
17:35 | 24 Jan 2010
Redistribution of wealth.....is still theft.
Just because someone did not spend cash is that any excuse for the waster to benefit from their thrift?
If you spent £30K on your car, then its ok for government to just take it away, and give it to that waster to drive?
There is more money to be taken from the top fiddlers, than the poor 'working classes ' at the bottom. Yes a person with money in the bank still worked their whole lives for it.
IHT does not raise much revenue than a clampdown on the bankers would. 'Broon' is too scared to do that!
Dennis Hall - Response to Antony Atkin - careful, you're not entirely correct
17:39 | 24 Jan 2010
Antony stated that there are instances when a series of Potentially Exempt Transfers would be considered for inheritance tax purposes going back 14 years and thus a phased approach to mitigating inheritance tax is risky. I disagree.
Antony is only partially right, and the difficulty comes when gifts have been made into a trust which have been treated as Chargeable Lifetime Transfers.
If a Potentially Exempt Transfer has been made within 7 years of a Chargeable Lifetime Transfer, then the Revenue will look back 7 years from the date of the PET in order to calculate the additional tax due. However a series of PETs on their own, without any CLTs involved does not give rise to the 14 year look back.
Ian - Expossure of care homes-White Rabbit
17:48 | 24 Jan 2010
White, take off those rose tinted glasses.
Did you not see the expossure of care homes where they pay up to £750 per week?
Minimum wage to staff. Staff not allowed meals on duty. Patients living 18 months yes because there are left in their own dirt and given no attention, borred stiff all day.
My mother is at home and enjoys it! Quality of life is a joke!
Dennis Hall - Response to Ian and Ronald
18:09 | 24 Jan 2010
The use of a life insurance policy held in trust doesn't actually mitigate any inheritance tax due, it merely provides a means for it to be paid. The Revenue will still get their money, whether it comes from the estate or whether the proceeds of the life insurance policy.
Life Insurance actuaries aren't totally stupid, they have a fair idea the Ian's mother, aged 90 with COPD, has a high probability of dying sooner rather than later, and will price the insurance premiums accordingly - in fact its academic really as the liklihood of obtaining cover in the first place is pretty low.
However, 7 year policies as Ronald described can be useful protection for plans made that may be derailed in case of death within 7 years - they favour the younger lives assured of course.
Personally I am somewhat critical of using life assurance as a long term vehicle for inheritance tax mitigation - as already mentioned it isn't really mitigation, just a source of funds to pay the tax, and created using your own money.
Tony Starkey - IHT should be 100%
20:54 | 24 Jan 2010
Where is the fairness in a system that allows wealthy people, whose wealth has often been accrued as a result of them having engaged in fraudulent or unethical practices, pass on their money to their children who have done nothing to earn it.
Compare these children to those whose parents are criminals or drug addicts and who have received no education or moral guidance from them and therefore set out on life's journey unequipped.
People should be free to make as much money as they like and spend it as they like but upon their death all their estate should pass to the state where it should be used to help children who need to escape from a blighted background and poor upbringing.
mark wild - Prepare ASAP bottom line
22:09 | 24 Jan 2010
This tax is something most people never think about since most are under the level and its a subject kind of out of bounds.
I think the Princess Diana unexpected event everyone should have in mind even if young and is underish the current level,
As I understand birthday gifts can be offset and a marriage gift and £3000pa can be made and the seven year rule,
I think if anyone is well off and intend to give money to someone just give it away now and start the seven year scale,
I think high value houses are hard to move to a son or daughter but I am sure a legal expert would have a legal way to make a house a gift to start the 7 year rule.
I am not sure what PETs are but they sound expensive and laws change could be a poor option.
The £1m from the cons may not come to pass if we enter a double dip so I think prepare for the worst is very good advice,
Reading Ians problems just adds wieght to the importance of IHT planning and spending it may be good advice too.
Looking at the wrong tax
09:39 | 25 Jan 2010
IHT = 40% over £325k
Long term care tax = 100% over £22k
In the UK it's best to die quickly than a slowly linger.
Hard working people pay tax and NI all their working life and STILL get taxed 100% over £22k if you are unlucky enough to die slowly.
This is the real tax scandal.
big Joe Morrinoco - Tax x two
10:04 | 25 Jan 2010
We pay tax all our life then we get taxed on our paid-for assets when we go. Unbelievable!!
Sean Hargrave - carrying over IHT allowances
10:35 | 25 Jan 2010
great article, completely agree it's unfair to tax hard working people who don't have enough cash to give away assets, like the super rich do (the very people the tax is supposed to be aimed at).
am i right to believe by the comments that the allowance of a deceased spouse or parent doesn't pass on if they died before IHT was known as IHT... which i think happened in 1986?
is that right, seems very unfair as i was assuming my father's allowance would've carried over to my mother, even though he died back in 1984?
Dennis Hall - Response to Sean Hargrave
11:01 | 25 Jan 2010
Although Inheritance Tax commenced 18 March 1986, HMRC has a set of rules to deal with estates that were settled in accordance with Estate Duty and Capital Transfer Tax rules current at the time.
Because there were many changes to how transfers between spouses were treated, the individual rules are very complex, however, it may well be possible that in 1984 when your Father died, some or all of his estate passed to your mother, and thus the new rules could apply
Where the first spouse died between 13 March 1975 and18 March 1986 then the estate would have been subject to Capital Transfer Tax. Any transfers to the spouse would have been exempt from tax in the same way as the under the current rules. The transfer of nil-rate band provisions will operate in these cases in the same way as it works for inheritance tax. So that if on the death of the first spouse all their estate was transferred to their surviving spouse, then a claim may be made on the death of the surviving spouse to increase the nil-rate band by 100%.
Harry Jackson - -
11:03 | 25 Jan 2010
Judging by the grammar of the above comments not many of you need to worry about being above the threshold anyway. If any of you are in the top 3% of earners then the country really is in trouble!
Harry Jackson - one more thing
11:06 | 25 Jan 2010
"Scrounging off the state: Unacceptable!
Scrounging off your dead parents: Great idea!"
Never change, conservatives.
Gerry Stewart
11:21 | 25 Jan 2010
Quite astonishing that individualsa such as Dennis hall cklaim mto0 be advisors on inheritance tax when it is patently clear that he doesn't understand the very basics of the tax. His last 2 paragraphs appear to suggest that the individuals who have done the saving are the same ones that are being taxed. This is an impossibility. The 'savers' are dead. It is their inheritors who get taxed. (i.e those who did nothing except draw a winning ticket in the great sperm bank lottery) So, individduals who 'ssek to support themselves during their retirement' and who 'diligently saved and invested in order to be self -sufficient in later LIFE', cannot possibly have that objective affected in any way by a tax on those who inherit the money after they are DEAD. The man's a clown
Gazkaz - Unless death is likely in next 3 yrs - DON'T worry
11:48 | 25 Jan 2010
Unless death is imminent in the next three years - don't worry too much.
With the USA adding 100 Billion - A MONTH to it's existing giggazillion debt, the dollar will have crashed within 3yrs. (thats not including stae/municpal debts and unfunded U.S pension liabilities etc - just to eep it short).
If Japans bond rate goes up a couple more percent, they wil have to default on their sovereign debt.
When the rest of more Euro based creative accounting crawls out the woodwork, there won't be much joy there either.
The far east central banke are buying gold & China (now the biggest gold producer) isn't selling it for a reason. China is spending it's dollar reserves buying up natural resource producers around the world for a reason too.
Perhaps you should worry less about future inheritance tax and a little more on hanging on to the capital.
Just a thought.
Gazkaz - Spelling/miskeys
11:52 | 25 Jan 2010
Apologies on that one, before the ..........crowd , who miss the point - points it out.
Kat - IHT on 3 bed semis
12:28 | 25 Jan 2010
I wouldn't mind so much if Inheritance Tax was really a tax on the wealthy.
But house prices being what they are in London and the South-East, there will be IHT to pay on my widowed Mum's estate. Her modest 2 bed & boxroom semi will put the estate over the IHT limit.
We just hope that we have enough money around somehow when she dies as I understand the tax has to be paid before probate can be granted. So we can't sell the house and THEN pay the tax - the tax has to be paid first.
IP - Political consequences.
13:49 | 25 Jan 2010
Whist it is intersting to read all the comments on the financial aspects of IHT, the political parties have to weigh up the political aspects of IHT. 3% of 25 million homes is 750,000 houses. Each house has an average family of 4.4 people and bundle in one elderly parent and there are 5.4 voters per house in the IHT bracket. In total there are about 3.8 million voters waiting to be swayed one way or another by which ever party gives a good deal on IHT. As Labour seems unwilling or unable to improve the IHT rate, that number of voters could make quite a diiference, especially in marginal seats.
