9.9bn Quid, 0% tax. Tell me PH, How is this fair?
Discussion
Guybrush said:
You're missing the effect of what could perhaps be described as a 'moral hazard' effect of inheritance tax. If it were high enough, far fewer people would bother making anything in their lifetime if they knew it would all be taken away. (Put simply, they wouldn't work as hard.) To a great extent, much of one's effort is based upon the knowledge that one's family (or anyone chosen) will inherit. (Edit)
Sorry, but I just don't get this at all, it seems to me a bit of a sad reflection on one's job satisfaction, or lack of it. Most people I know work hard to provide themselves and their family with a good life whilst they are still alive, equally motivated by doing a job which they find worthwhile, interesting and fulfilling.
Anything left to my kids when I go is an incidental bonus in my book, not the main purpose of my working life. Seems a bit sad to me if thinking about your inheritance is a major motivation in your life (and don't get me started on people who have pictures of their kids on their desks at work). Nomex suit at the ready
What exactly motivates incredibly industrious people with no kids, and why do some very dynamic, self-made wealthy people work like stink long after they have made their zillions, yet leave nothing to their kids?
J4CKO said:
How many actually think that when someone dies the state should get the lot ?
How many actually think that someone has 'earned' a 500% rise in the price of their house over a 25 year period? I thought you lot of right wing nutcases liked a meritocracy?Inheritance tax is one of the most morally sound taxes we have. Long may it continue.
Edited by zygalski on Sunday 21st August 12:11
zygalski said:
Inheritance tax is one of the most morally sound taxes we have. Long may it continue.
I'm struggling to see why the Government should have a second dip at your wealth simply because you have died.Edited by zygalski on Sunday 21st August 12:11
Take someone that has never purchased a property and simply saved every penny they could as cash in the bank (or wherever). They have £500,000 in the bank on death.
They have paid income tax on their earnings over the years.
They have paid income tax on any interest they have received from the bank.
Why should the Government get an additional tax of 40% x £175,000 on death?
zygalski said:
J4CKO said:
How many actually think that when someone dies the state should get the lot ?
How many actually think that someone has 'earned' a 500% rise in the price of their house over a 25 year period? I thought you lot of right wing nutcases liked a meritocracy?Inheritance tax is one of the most morally sound taxes we have. Long may it continue.
Edited by zygalski on Sunday 21st August 12:11
Most immoral tax there is.
Much more important to answere is large corporations fudging profits to transfer taxation to lower tax regions. I know Starbucks have been shamed into stopping this practice, but how long before they try again once the spotlight is off.
PurpleMoonlight said:
zygalski said:
Inheritance tax is one of the most morally sound taxes we have. Long may it continue.
I'm struggling to see why the Government should have a second dip at your wealth simply because you have died.Edited by zygalski on Sunday 21st August 12:11
Take someone that has never purchased a property and simply saved every penny they could as cash in the bank (or wherever). They have £500,000 in the bank on death.
They have paid income tax on their earnings over the years.
They have paid income tax on any interest they have received from the bank.
Why should the Government get an additional tax of 40% x £175,000 on death?
Which happens to be wrong-minded but that's about it for so-called justification.
PurpleMoonlight said:
zygalski said:
Inheritance tax is one of the most morally sound taxes we have. Long may it continue.
I'm struggling to see why the Government should have a second dip at your wealth simply because you have died.Edited by zygalski on Sunday 21st August 12:11
Take someone that has never purchased a property and simply saved every penny they could as cash in the bank (or wherever). They have £500,000 in the bank on death.
They have paid income tax on their earnings over the years.
They have paid income tax on any interest they have received from the bank.
Why should the Government get an additional tax of 40% x £175,000 on death?
Vizsla said:
Guybrush said:
You're missing the effect of what could perhaps be described as a 'moral hazard' effect of inheritance tax. If it were high enough, far fewer people would bother making anything in their lifetime if they knew it would all be taken away. (Put simply, they wouldn't work as hard.) To a great extent, much of one's effort is based upon the knowledge that one's family (or anyone chosen) will inherit. (Edit)
Sorry, but I just don't get this at all, it seems to me a bit of a sad reflection on one's job satisfaction, or lack of it. Most people I know work hard to provide themselves and their family with a good life whilst they are still alive, equally motivated by doing a job which they find worthwhile, interesting and fulfilling.
Anything left to my kids when I go is an incidental bonus in my book, not the main purpose of my working life. Seems a bit sad to me if thinking about your inheritance is a major motivation in your life (and don't get me started on people who have pictures of their kids on their desks at work). Nomex suit at the ready
What exactly motivates incredibly industrious people with no kids, and why do some very dynamic, self-made wealthy people work like stink long after they have made their zillions, yet leave nothing to their kids?
zygalski said:
Inheritance tax is one of the most morally sound taxes we have. Long may it continue.
Or what about this.Edited by zygalski on Sunday 21st August 12:11
Guy works hard, buys a house (London), upgrades over the years, then meets the love of his life. They have a couple of children but never married.
One day he feels very tired (in his 40's), so goes for a nap in the afternoon and never wakes up. Partner and young children mortified, but not the Government apparently.
You see, he was the sole owner of the house. He had life insurance to cover the outstanding mortgage. But the house had to be sold because the Government wanted their pound of flesh. Cue even more mortified mother, and children who had to leave the only home they had ever known.
Still feel your tax is justified?
zygalski said:
Guybrush said:
Exactly, and why shouldn't the (now) deceased have been free to give all of their own money to whomever they wish? It's clearly and envy and resentment tax clothed in a righteous veneer by its supporters.
Eh? It'll be paid from my estate.Maybe it's because it's set at a level it was never meant to be set at. Large estates rolling from father to son on and on, not earnt and therefore only 'taxed' at its origin. Now, any reasonably professional person can easily leave an estate above the threshold, and boy, being an executor is a pain. People do loose their homes to pay this tax.
Guybrush said:
Exactly, and why shouldn't the (now) deceased have been free to give all of their own money to whomever they wish? It's clearly and envy and resentment tax clothed in a righteous veneer by its supporters.
They are free to do so whilst they are alive. If your kids mean that much to you give them what you have well in advance of your death?I think we are a long way from being a meritocracy and IHT is one way or moving closer to that. Advantaging one person has an impact down the chain disadvantaging another as fewer assets are available on the market
Gary C said:
Eh?, so what? It's still previously taxed 'income' being taxed again.
Every pound in existence has been taxed for all perpetuity. Its a misnomer to call it already taxed income. Money is generally taxed when it transfers from one person to another where there is a profit. That perfectly describes inheritance. You are not owed the money, it's new income. BJG1 said:
Gary C said:
Eh?, so what? It's still previously taxed 'income' being taxed again.
Every pound in existence has been taxed for all perpetuity. Its a misnomer to call it already taxed income. Money is generally taxed when it transfers from one person to another where there is a profit. That perfectly describes inheritance. You are not owed the money, it's new income. I see your point that the new person makes an 'income' from inheriting, so why should it not be taxed, but then why not tax all gifts ?
Oh, and since quantative easing, not sure that it's all been taxed in perpetuity !
Randy Winkman said:
Hosenbugler said:
Randy Winkman said:
Exactly. But when it comes to money, some people are only concerned with what they haven't got, rather than appreciating what they have got.
Indeed, a typicaly socialist perspective. If they had a life they would not have time to be envious of others. Gary C said:
zygalski said:
Guybrush said:
Exactly, and why shouldn't the (now) deceased have been free to give all of their own money to whomever they wish? It's clearly and envy and resentment tax clothed in a righteous veneer by its supporters.
Eh? It'll be paid from my estate.Maybe it's because it's set at a level it was never meant to be set at. Large estates rolling from father to son on and on, not earnt and therefore only 'taxed' at its origin. Now, any reasonably professional person can easily leave an estate above the threshold, and boy, being an executor is a pain. People do loose their homes to pay this tax.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff