Inheritance Tax


#1

What are your thoughts on Inheritance Tax?

Should the government be able to reap people’s assets once they die, and to what extent. Some people argue that inheritance is a major source of inequality and therefore we should have a 100% tax. People should warn wealth than inherit. Others say that a high tax would disincentivise saving and investing.

Some people believe that the tax rate should be 0%, as it is taxing money already earned.

What are your thoughts?


#2

All money in an economy is taxed many times. By the time you bought yourself that coffee, you’ve already taken out your national insurance contributions in earnings, then income tax at the end of the year, then to top it all off you’ve got VAT as well.

Even more taxes with fuel, when you pay VAT on the fuel duty you’ve just paid, or paying VAT on the airline passenger duty you’ve just paid. And if you think about it, you’re paying VAT on the fuel royalties your airline’s supplier just paid, so there’s more to it in the background.

As for the idea of inheritance tax itself, I support it. But I don’t support a flat rate of tax. I kind of support a case-by-case basis tax, but that would never work. I don’t think the tax is high enough for aristocratic families or people who pass on money to worthless knobs on instagram who aim to be socialites and nothing more.

Equally I don’t think the tax should apply to people who are self-made and their children aim even further, or people who are only paying the tax because they live in a certain postcode.


#3

there’s nothing wrong with inequality as it’s a natural phenomenon


#4

Severe and widespread inequality is not the most efficient distribution of wealth for maximization of utility, and low levels of inequality should be the goal for any civilization that can do so. Appealing to nature of the natural state of something is a fallacy; being natural gives an action of state no merit of its own.


#5

What makes it natural? How is it being natural make it correct? It’s a natural occurring thing for animals to rape other animals, therefore is there “Nothing wrong with rape”?

Being gay is a natural phenomenon, yet you find it wrong.


#6

can’t see the fuck why one should have to hand their parents’ money over the state, you know, money that would be left otherwise to me - I mean why should the state get to give it all in foreing aid and immigrants etc… screw that


#7

and since when did people not naturally choose who they have sex with


#8

There’s a huge difference between natural inequality (on the basis of market demand and an individual’s skills) and modern inequality, like being born to a family who won an estate in a war or haven’t developed their real estate empire since 1910s (Grosvenors come to mind).

There’s nothing fair about certain people having $20 billion because it was passed over through 3 generations and all they do is shitpost on Instagram.

Enough to never have to get a job, sure, I could stomach that somehow against my will, and then limit them to $25 million, or $250k a year, more than enough to live on and never make a CV.

Bill Gates isn’t leaving anything to his kids bar a mansion each, top quality private education and university paid off and probably a few thousand spending money. Almost all of his wealth will be given away. Why is he doing this? Do his children need it?

I wouldn’t even be too annoyed if he left them with a couple billion each, since he is self-made after all, so long as they aren’t socially useless.


#9

It’s natural, although uncommon, for a man to be attracted to a man.


#10

that’s just a very small minority of people though, exceptions etc…


#11

A very small minority of people hold a third of this country’s wealth.

An even smaller minority hold three quarters of this country’s land.

I’m not talking about Joe Smith and Margaret Smith owning a house in London worth $800k and pensions of $5m after a successful careers as entrepreneurs and doctors respectively.

I’m talking about a random person from an important bloodline having $5bn in various bank networks who hasn’t done a job in her life, neither did their parents or their parents, and that money has only served as an interest accumulator, besides her charging yearly rent on 5 000 000 square feet of living space, which she adds to the bank account and never uses.

The Grosvenors own lots of land and a few buildings in Southampton, all on leasehold or direct rent. Apart from occasional contracted renovations, these buildings haven’t been touched for over a century. Yet, they avoid inheritance tax anyway and the land keeps getting passed on and on, and money is withdrawn from the productive economy every single year to give to a bunch of people who sit at home and attend social events.


#12

there’s mass inequality out there though, in this regard - ie. some people virtually never get any sex yet all the lefties complain about is SSM , fem rights etc…or more money for rich women to close the gender pay gap


#13

What’s your point?


#14

I certainly don’t agree with that aspect, I mean they should of course pay some inheritance tax, but not 100%


#15

The point is that there is massive inequality in nature, so people should not be complaining about it so much as they most likely benefit from it


#16

Just because there is inequality in nature, doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. There is killing nature, doesn’t mean it’s a good thing.


#17

Nobody in this thread has suggested 100%, nevertheless, most of the billionaires pay nothing anyway and always have done so.

However, in the example I have given, I see no reason why they would even be able to justify half of that money being given.

In my opinion, something workable is like this:
Each generation of estate holders is allowed to pass on all of the capital gains they have made on the total capital, plus half of the previous generation, and then 10% of the total capital, minus primary residence.

Let’s say the policy works from 2020.

George Grosvenor inherited a $50bn estate in 1980. He accumulates an extra $5bn to the estate and dies in 2000.

Charles Grosvenor inherits a $55bn estate in 2000. He accumulates an extra $7.5bn to the estate and dies in 2020.

Richard Grosvenor inherits the $62.5bn estate in 2020. He keeps the $7.5bn of his father, and $2.5bn of his grandfather. He then takes a $5bn slice of the initial capital of the third generation prior. Hence, his estate is now worth $15bn.


There is a flaw though - or a fair and just compensation, whichever way your political view swings:

Someone Gates inherits a $5 000 estate in 1940. He accumulates an extra $15 000 to the estate and dies in 1960.

Someone Gates inherits a $20 000 estate in 1960. He accumulates an extra $20 000 to the estate and dies in 1980.

Bill Gates inherits a $40 000 estate in 1980. He accumulates an extra $70 000 000 000 to the estate and dies in 2030.

Rory Gates inherits all of the estate in 2030, taking $70 000 040 000. He takes his fathers $70bn, his grandfather’s $10 000 and $2 000 from the initial estate. Hence he is now worth $70 000 012 000.

Obviously inflation and interest erodes a lot of this, but not significantly enough, as most of this will be based on land. Very few billionaires et al have their net worth in personal finances rather than real estate.


#18

do you see any well paid and attractive TV types complaining about how thier good looks contributed to their success and how they wished they were ugly?


#19

I wasn’t advocating for it or saying that it should be that way, I was merely saying inequality is an issue.


#20

so is cancer.