The Budget

Yolina

mwpt wrote: »

Again, on balance, I think higher inheritance tax would be a good thing for society overall.

I'm French and the inheritance tax system there is ridiculous - it varies depending on how closely related you are to the person you're inheriting from.
So from my mum the first €100,000 would be tax-free and then there's a sliding scale for the rest with no less than 7 "levels", starting at 5% with a maximum of 45% tax. However from her OH, who's not my dad and so we're not related (unless he adopts me) then only €1500 is tax-free then it's a flat 60% on everything else.
There's also different (and not particularly generous) tax-free allowances for siblings and nephews and nieces and tax after that varies between 35 and 45%

MacMickster

stator wrote: »

Dead people don't need money, it's the fairest and most harmless point to tax someone.
If I could defer all my taxes until death I would.

As for the 'double taxation' that happens all the time. Your salary is taxes twice before you receive, then when you spend it you have to pay VAT or duty or stamp duty etc.

I completely agree.

As a nation, despite austerity, we continue to spend far more than we raise through taxation. We need to close that gap and not entirely through spending cuts.

I would far rather pay more tax when I am 6 feet under than do so now.

People also seem to forget that with increasing life expectancies many "children" are going to be in their 60s or 70s before they inherit anything from their parents, then will merely save that inheritance to pass on to their own pensioner children down the line.

Thrugelmir

MacMickster wrote: »

People also seem to forget that with increasing life expectancies many "children" are going to be in their 60s or 70s before they inherit anything from their parents, then will merely save that inheritance to pass on to their own pensioner children down the line.

People may spend more of their accumulated savings in their retirement years too. Very easy to go cruising these days.

westv

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Very easy to go cruising these days.

Do they still do that along Southend sea front on a Saturday evening?

princeofpounds

Economically-speaking inheritance tax makes a lot of sense.


It is unearned income, and so taxing it does not disincentivise productive activity like income tax does. It is progressive and not anti-meritocratic. It taxes wealth rather than the generation of wealth.


But I also get the emotional argument about family and family homes.

Thrugelmir

westv wrote: »

Do they still do that along Southend sea front on a Saturday evening?

Southampton Docks is the in place I hear.

padington

The best tax system that I can imagine would be a tax on anti social behaviour. So every product, action and job came with a different tax implication to guide everyone to make healthy community spirited choices.

Every product, crime and job should also come with a bar code linked to your NI number.

Alternatively some positive behaviour could be rewarded also with less tax.

We'll get there soon enough, the digital age will cometh, even to the tax man.

MumOf2

mwpt wrote: »

I know what you mean.

On balance, I'd say I'm in favour of higher inheritance tax. In terms of fairness, it is hard to argue the other way. Children of wealthy people are no more 'deserving' of a huge handout than poor people who receive handouts from the state (ie. our tax), which people enjoy complaining about.

Again, on balance, I think higher inheritance tax would be a good thing for society overall. Individually, people will not like it, but those people have built their wealth on the back of the state (roads, facilities, artificial land scarcity, etc).

The property owned by someone is owned by that person, not by the state, neither entirely nor in any part. A person buys a property out of taxed income and maintains it out of taxed income. Often the purchase and upkeep of someone's home entails considerable sacrifice whereas others are quite happy to smoke, drink, enjoy overseas holidays and sky subscriptions, and so on. Why should the state have any power over any person's private property? Why should other people benefit from the endeavours of people who make sacrifices in order to provide a roof over the head of their families?


MumOf2

MacMickster

MumOf2 wrote: »

The property owned by someone is owned by that person, not by the state, neither entirely nor in any part. A person buys a property out of taxed income and maintains it out of taxed income. Often the purchase and upkeep of someone's home entails considerable sacrifice whereas others are quite happy to smoke, drink, enjoy overseas holidays and sky subscriptions, and so on. Why should the state have any power over any person's private property? Why should other people benefit from the endeavours of people who make sacrifices in order to provide a roof over the head of their families?


MumOf2

How old do you expect your children to be when they inherit your home?

Given that the government needs to raise additional taxes in order to eliminate the budget deficit and (according to Boy George) run a surplus in future, are you happy for your children to have to pay much higher taxes on their income until they receive that inheritance from you?

Of course this may mean that even with endeavour and sacrifice they are unable to afford to put the kind of roof over the heads of your grandchildren that you provided for them.

mwpt

MumOf2 wrote: »

The property owned by someone is owned by that person, not by the state, neither entirely nor in any part. A person buys a property out of taxed income and maintains it out of taxed income. Often the purchase and upkeep of someone's home entails considerable sacrifice whereas others are quite happy to smoke, drink, enjoy overseas holidays and sky subscriptions, and so on. Why should the state have any power over any person's private property? Why should other people benefit from the endeavours of people who make sacrifices in order to provide a roof over the head of their families?
MumOf2

You're using a moral argument here so I'm going to resort to the same. What makes your children so special vs any other children? Why do they deserve a windfall of a house or amount of cash as a start in life?

Any way you break it down, they don't. You can't logically argue that they are entitled to this any more than every other child in the UK could be entitled to it in the form of inheritance tax and redistribution. The only thing they did was get lucky to be born into the right family. Besides, I'm not saying people are not entitled to pass on (edit: some of) their wealth, just that inheritance tax is quite a fair tax. It's progressive. Does not create disincentives to productivity, etc.

Don't mistake me, I believe in the principles of the free market, I'm not a socialist. But at the moment the most efficient way to run a state is through taxation. There are other methods but that's for the future. So, in the framework we have, I think inheritance tax is an incredibly "fair" tax in that respect. The bottom line is that 99% of people aren't scroungers and at the moment we are not generating enough income for everybody to live comfortably. The reason you sleep safely in your home at night is that there is a police force who protect you, and laws that will protect your right to private property. There is a welfare system which means people will not have to resort to breaking into your home to survive (this happens in many other countries). So, the state actually has whatever rights society at large dictates it should have. There isn't some inherent law of the universe at work here.