9.9bn Quid, 0% tax. Tell me PH, How is this fair?
Discussion
Inheritance is the perfect tax:
1. Simple planning allows it to be avoided, so in most cases it's just an idiot tax.
2. It taxes someone who isn't around to miss the money.
3. It has no economic drag by way of reducing effort.
4. It acts as a net to tax otherwise untaxed, unearned income.
1. Simple planning allows it to be avoided, so in most cases it's just an idiot tax.
2. It taxes someone who isn't around to miss the money.
3. It has no economic drag by way of reducing effort.
4. It acts as a net to tax otherwise untaxed, unearned income.
ikarl said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
djc206 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You can't pay tax on something that isn't yours.
Clearly you canoyster said:
Inheritance is the perfect tax:
1. Simple planning allows it to be avoided, so in most cases it's just an idiot tax.
2. It taxes someone who isn't around to miss the money.
3. It has no economic drag by way of reducing effort.
4. It acts as a net to tax otherwise untaxed, unearned income.
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. Taken to extremes, you get the extreme left wing effect of high taxation where an individual's and therefore the country's productivity is extremely low. (I realise there are other reasons for a country performing poorly under left wing rule, but disenchantment is a major one.)1. Simple planning allows it to be avoided, so in most cases it's just an idiot tax.
2. It taxes someone who isn't around to miss the money.
3. It has no economic drag by way of reducing effort.
4. It acts as a net to tax otherwise untaxed, unearned income.
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. Taken to extremes, you get the extreme left wing effect of high taxation where an individual's and therefore the country's productivity is extremely low. (I realise there are other reasons for a country performing poorly under left wing rule, but disenchantment is a major one.)
That's pretty much nonsense though, if you're accruing income for your family why wait until you're dead to give it to them? I'm only in my 50s and I'm already looking into the best ways to transfer assets to my teenaged children (without leaving them vulnerable to loss should they get married then divorced in the distant future). Unless something goes badly wrong, our estate will be well below the insurance tax threshold by the time we both die.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. Taken to extremes, you get the extreme left wing effect of high taxation where an individual's and therefore the country's productivity is extremely low. (I realise there are other reasons for a country performing poorly under left wing rule, but disenchantment is a major one.)
Would it also not lead to planning for IHT as in moving to another country a few years before you pop your cloggs thus saving who knows 15-20 years net income for the individual who would receive it. We need people to save for the future to have ample pension provisions in whatever form it takes
PurpleMoonlight said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
In law, the estate is taxed. In practical terms, the beneficiaries are taxed.
You could equally say in practical terms, the deceased is taxed.You are arguing semantics.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Indeed if my children have to pay a single penny when we die I will have failed them. Must be horrible both your parents are dead I know you must be sad here's your tax bill now cough up.
That's very dramatic, and I can see a Daily Mail sad face headline. But in reality, that's not what happens, as you know full well.The solicitor, or whoever is handling it, does not say "here's your tax bill, cough up." They say "we've sold the house, liquidised the assets, and here's your huge unearned windfall after deduction of tax.
So enough with the dead parents and the Fagin like taxman hounding the poor brokenhearted children (who are in most cases 40 or 50 with kids of their own.)
Randy Winkman said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Indeed if my children have to pay a single penny when we die I will have failed them. Must be horrible both your parents are dead I know you must be sad here's your tax bill now cough up.
That's very dramatic, and I can see a Daily Mail sad face headline. But in reality, that's not what happens, as you know full well.The solicitor, or whoever is handling it, does not say "here's your tax bill, cough up." They say "we've sold the house, liquidised the assets, and here's your huge unearned windfall after deduction of tax.
So enough with the dead parents and the Fagin like taxman hounding the poor brokenhearted children (who are in most cases 40 or 50 with kids of their own.)
Randy Winkman said:
How can a person that no longer exists be taxed "in practical terms"? That's just silly.
Because tax is imposed on the estate of the deceased before any bequeaths are effected.Neither the deceased or the beneficiaries are diretly liable for the tax, so if you are going to argue semantics of 'practical' then either party can be used.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Randy Winkman said:
How can a person that no longer exists be taxed "in practical terms"? That's just silly.
Because tax is imposed on the estate of the deceased before any bequeaths are effected.Neither the deceased or the beneficiaries are diretly liable for the tax, so if you are going to argue semantics of 'practical' then either party can be used.
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.
"Disappointed? Why should I be disappointed? I got rose bushes didn't I? I got a used car, didn't I? This other guy, what'd you call him? The beneficiary? He got $3,000,000 but he didn't get the rose bushes. I got the rose bushes. I definitely got the rose bushes. Those are rose bushes!"zygalski said:
Hosenbugler said:
Inheritance tax is just another example of state stealing, an assault on the wishes of the deceased. My estate is and will be sewn up tight, the b
ds will not get a cent from my estate when I go.
The threshold is £325000 , which means just about any homeowner in the home counties is susceptible to being collared if they have the misfortune to die. fking disgraceful , the odious pointy nosed Labour lefties love it of course , obsessed with other peoples money.
So which tax would you put up to compensate for the loss of £5bn pa inheritance tax revenue?ds will not get a cent from my estate when I go. The threshold is £325000 , which means just about any homeowner in the home counties is susceptible to being collared if they have the misfortune to die. f
king disgraceful , the odious pointy nosed Labour lefties love it of course , obsessed with other peoples money. Simply reduce foreign aid to the level it was at before Cameron took office and you would have £3Bn spare.
BJG1 said:
The clue to State sponsorship is in the name. He didn't call himself a Duke.
That's got nothing to do with the swamp which was drained and developed. This swamp was acquired through marriage not from any governmental or royal generosity.BJG1 said:
Regardless I don't think we'll agree on this.
Only because the facts don't fit your version!BJG1 said:
I don't think some dude 600 years ago owning a swamp should be allowed to result in a £9bn fortune for his ancestor. Clearly you don't mind that
Successor? OK it's your opinion and that's fine, but if the state confiscates the results of enterprise - beyond the minimum in taxes needed to run small government efficiently - at some random point governed by the success of the enterprise then that's...random, and only justifiable under ideological reasoning by assertion.
"It's too much"
"Say some people with much less"
Not convincing at, all regardless of titles
don4l said:
No need to put up any taxes at all.
Simply reduce foreign aid to the level it was at before Cameron took office and you would have £3Bn spare.
90% of foreign aid is given in lieu of the money coming back to us in export contracts from the countries we are aiding. So a £3b cut in foreign aid will mean a £2.9b reduction in income, so you've only saved £100m. But opened yourself up to criticism for lagging behind other developed nations with foreign aid. Simply reduce foreign aid to the level it was at before Cameron took office and you would have £3Bn spare.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
ikarl said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
djc206 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You can't pay tax on something that isn't yours.
Clearly you canNothing to do with inheritance, but it just occurred to me that I need to pay road tax for my leased car...not really the same though
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. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff