Equal is Unfair

Moby

economic wrote: »

If you have 100% inheritance tax, this money is going to the public, what makes you think they deserve this wealth more then the people/entities that the estate owner wishes their wealth to be passed onto?

IQ has everything to do with economic success as a country as a whole.

There is help available for those with mental illness. Those who do suffer from it are very likely to be around those that dont who care for them and so those who care for them will guide them in the right direction usually.

Yes the money should go to the public for the reasons I gave. Anything else stratifies the class structure and discriminates against equality of opportunity. https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-24/edition-4/looking-back-controversial-hans-eysenck. As I said the IQ test as a measure of race and intelligence was debunked years ago. Yes I agree there is help for those with mental illness, just far too little of it.

System

Moby wrote: »

Yes the money should go to the public

By the "public" you of course mean the government of the day.

What makes you think the government will use it well?
Are you aware that in a democracy political power changes periodically? Are you happy that an incoming government, let's suppose as an example a Conservative one, should inherit a vast sum of money from its predecessor, without doing anything to earn it?

Or do you perhaps believe that all tax receipts should be immediately distributed equally to every adult the moment the money is collected?
What do you think would be the consequences of handing everyone a million pounds?

Malthusian

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Are you happy that an incoming government, let's suppose as an example a Conservative one, should inherit a vast sum of money from its predecessor, without doing anything to earn it?

Ah but it wouldn't inherit any money because there would be a 100% Inheritance Tax. The outgoing Labour Government's money would instead go to... um... er... the EU?

Moby

We elect Govmt's. We can't elect families. As to the Govmt 'using it well'....you could say that about any taxation! Of course I'm aware Govmt's change periodically. It's called democracy! You and yours enjoy your wealth while you are alive and then it goes back to the public pot. More equal, more fair....and stops particular families hoarding land and resources down the generations. Too much of that in this country. Look at the distribution of land ownership in Scotland for example.

economic

Moby wrote: »

We elect Govmt's. We can't elect families. As to the Govmt 'using it well'....you could say that about any taxation! Of course I'm aware Govmt's change periodically. It's called democracy! You and yours enjoy your wealth while you are alive and then it goes back to the public pot. More equal, more fair....and stops particular families hoarding land and resources down the generations. Too much of that in this country. Look at the distribution of land ownership in Scotland for example.

Lets say there was a 100% IHT. Lets even say its not even possible for the rich to get around it. This means businesses would go to the public once the owner dies. It can not be passed onto children. So we have the mother of all taxes.

What incentive would a business owner have in growing the business if he knows the itll all be taxed away and cant be passed as gifts? What is the point of him working hard to grow it. Why not just shut down the shop, fire all his employees, stop producing and just consume all the wealth before he dies. Also he would tell his kids, hey sons dont bother setting up a business itll be all for nothing as itll be taxed on death anyway. just do a simple 9-5 government job as thats where all the money is nowadays. you wont add any value to the world but at least youll have a nice time consuming other peoples wealth.

Eric_the_half_a_bee

100% IHT is very easy to avoid. For example:

a) sell all of your assets
b) buy an annuity with the proceeds
c) buy gold with any income in excess of your needs
d) give gold away to your kids on the quiet

westernpromise

Moby wrote: »

We elect Govmt's. We can't elect families. As to the Govmt 'using it well'....you could say that about any taxation! Of course I'm aware Govmt's change periodically. It's called democracy! You and yours enjoy your wealth while you are alive and then it goes back to the public pot. More equal, more fair....and stops particular families hoarding land and resources down the generations. Too much of that in this country. Look at the distribution of land ownership in Scotland for example.

What do you mean, "back to the public pot"?

I just love the sense of entitlement to other people's stuff.

LHW99

And even if 100% inheritance tax worked, and no-one tried to avoid it and everything in the garden was lovely - there would still be inequality, because as has been said before
Equality of opportunity does not result in equality of outcome.

Moby

I think its an inability to let go of your fear about life that makes you want to hoard wealth down the generations.

In a fascinating study conducted by Bargh, participants were invited to imagine they had a superpower that rendered them safe from all physical harm, and were then quizzed on their social attitudes. Half the participants were liberals, and half conservatives. The imaginary superpower had no impact on liberals’ social attitudes. “Feeling physically safe,” however, “significantly changed the conservative participants’ social attitudes to being similar to those of liberals.”

This worked, he explains, because research has found that “conservatives have larger fear centres of the brain. They’re more concerned with physical safety than liberals.” Once we feel afraid, our own fear can further distort our perception of actual danger. For example, research has found that when people become new parents of a tiny, vulnerable baby, they begin to believe their local crime rate is going up, even if it is falling.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/08/yale-psychologist-john-bargh-politicians-want-us-to-be-fearful-theyre-manipulating-us-for-their-own-interest

Moby

LHW99 wrote: »

And even if 100% inheritance tax worked, and no-one tried to avoid it and everything in the garden was lovely - there would still be inequality, because as has been said before
Equality of opportunity does not result in equality of outcome.

I'd be happy with the equality of opportunity bit. Agreed equality of outcome is not the goal.