Inheritance Tax

[globaldiver]

I can’t see a moral argument for it, but interested in philosophical/moral views.

 

[gonzo]

Think we need to see a graph.

[Winchester White]

I read that 4% of estates are subject to it, is that correct?

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Robbery.

Straight from nowt to 40% too.

Quite possible that the deceased was paying tax at a higher rate during their career too.

[globaldiver]

4 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

I read that 4% of estates are subject to it, is that correct?

I think so.

[globaldiver]

6 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Think we need to see a graph.

Why?

[Winchester White]

1 minute ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Robbery.

Straight from nowt to 40% too.

Quite possible that the deceased was paying tax at a higher rate during their career too.

You could argue all tax is robbery to be fair. We all (should) pay tax on our earnings and we also pay it on almost everything we buy after that.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Plot morality against philosophy and find the point of inflection. 

[Winchester White]

1 minute ago, globaldiver said:

I think so.

So in likelihood, no fucker in the Bolton massive apart from those posh cunts who moved to the Shires will ever have to worry about it. In fact, 96% of the UK doesn't, so frankly I think we as a country have bigger issues to deal with.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

You could argue all tax is robbery to be fair. We all (should) pay tax on our earnings and we also pay it on almost everything we buy after that.

Well, no you can't.

We pay taxes and get services in return. Just the same as buying a car or getting a sparky in. A sign of civilised society. 

Taxing the dead, who no longer require services is a different matter, particularly after they've paid their dues all their life. 

[globaldiver]

2 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

So in likelihood, no fucker in the Bolton massive apart from those posh cunts who moved to the Shires will ever have to worry about it. In fact, 96% of the UK doesn't, so frankly I think we as a country have bigger issues to deal with.

Thanks for the input, but I was really interested by any moral or philosophical views.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

3 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

So in likelihood, no fucker in the Bolton massive apart from those posh cunts who moved to the Shires will ever have to worry about it. In fact, 96% of the UK doesn't, so frankly I think we as a country have bigger issues to deal with.

Someone who worked hard all their life and made something of themselves maybe?

Just posh cunts though.

Fucking hell, yet more politics of envy and derision. 

Sad world. 

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 minutes ago, globaldiver said:

Thanks for the input, but I was really interested by any moral or philosophical views.

I heard a discussion earlier, with it being outlined that those with wealth and good advisers will often utilise schemes to reduce/avoid paying it anyway. So perhaps not an effective way of raising cash anyway, I don't know.

There is no real moral case for it.

 

[Winchester White]

2 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Someone who worked hard all their life and made something of themselves maybe?

Just posh cunts though.

Fucking hell, yet more politics of envy and derision. 

Sad world. 

 

You keep missing my little nudges to others on here, I am in no way thinking what you assume.

On the actual point of inheritance tax, given it only affects the top 4% of people and has been around a good while I don't see an economic or moral reason to change it.

[globaldiver]

5 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

You keep missing my little nudges to others on here, I am in no way thinking what you assume.

On the actual point of inheritance tax, given it only affects the top 4% of people and has been around a good while I don't see an economic or moral reason to change it.

So, it’s morally right?

Please explain. I’m just trying to understand. I can see that it raises invaluable tax, but how is it morally right?

[Winchester White]

2 minutes ago, globaldiver said:

So, it’s morally right?

Please explain. I’m just trying to understand. I can see that it raises invaluable tax, but how is it morally right?

Because it is a way of generating some tax from the very richest. We take nowhere near the amount we should though tax for the very richest as it is. Do you think it is morally OK for a massive earner to have a 22% tax take (like the PM) over someone earning 90k which is more than double that?

[globaldiver]

4 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

Because it is a way of generating some tax from the very richest. We take nowhere near the amount we should though tax for the very richest as it is. Do you think it is morally OK for a massive earner to have a 22% tax take (like the PM) over someone earning 90k which is more than double that?

I’ll not address the pointless deflection.

”the richest” will have paid (and do, if you check the statistics), so why should they pay more on death? 
 

 

[Jol_BWFC]

More philosophically, it’s a tax on the wealthy at a time they (personally) least need the money. Spousal exemption is critical. Those inheriting the money probably won’t have done anything specifically to contribute to that wealth (there will be exceptions of course). Maybe therefore a more fair tax aimed at the wealthy.

Scrapping it will be seen as another Tory tax break for the richest, which Labour will / should play on.

Sunak and Hunt’s kids laughing all the way to the bank. 

Edited December 28, 2023 by Jol_BWFC

[RoadRunnerFan]

10 minutes ago, globaldiver said:

I’ll not address the pointless deflection.

”the richest” will have paid (and do, if you check the statistics), so why should they pay more on death? 
 

 

They don't. They are dead. The beneficiaries of their will might. 

Thomas Piketty lays out the case.

Here's a link to a summary 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444594297000169

Edited December 28, 2023 by RoadRunnerFan
Previous link bad

[globaldiver]

1 minute ago, Jol_BWFC said:

More philosophically, it’s a tax on the wealthy at a time they (personally) least need the money. Spousal exemption is critical. Those inheriting the money probably won’t have done anything specifically to contribute to that wealth (there will be exceptions of course). Maybe there a more fair tax on the wealthy.

Scrapping it will be seen as another Tory tax break for the wealthy, which Labour will / should play on.

Sunak and Hunt’s kids laughing all the way to the bank. 

Good answer, thanks.

If you were to be successful and create wealth, would you prefer to hand it to any children, or would you happily hand 40% to the state?

 

[globaldiver]

9 minutes ago, RoadRunnerFan said:

They don't. They are dead. The beneficiaries of their will might. 

Thomas Piketty lays out the case.

Here's a link to a summary 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444594297000169

I’ll have a read; thanks!

[Duck Egg]

No issue with it and would happily hand over the required sum if I met the threshold.  Oddly, I keep reading how the very very wealthy use various loopholes to dodge it. Duke of Westminster did apparently. 

We're an absolute basket case of a country at the moment unable to provide even basic services in many areas.  There are far, far more areas of importance than inheritance tax to concentrate on right now. No surprise that some of the usual suspects are tugging their forelocks with worry about it though.

[Jol_BWFC]

20 minutes ago, globaldiver said:

Good answer, thanks.

If you were to be successful and create wealth, would you prefer to hand it to any children, or would you happily hand 40% to the state?

 

I would very much prefer to hand any wealth I create to my children without my estate paying tax on it first. But in the same way as I’d much rather receive my full salary without PAYE deducting NI and income tax.

If I’m going to be taxed more heavily, I’d rather pay less tax on the money as I earn it and pay more tax on the money I am left with. That way I have more money to spend whilst I’m alive.

Edit: I do of course realise that would result in higher earners not paying their fair share in tax because they’d avoid it at income stage and spend it all before inheritance stage…

Edited December 28, 2023 by Jol_BWFC

[Tonge moor green jacket]

18 minutes ago, Jol_BWFC said:

More philosophically, it’s a tax on the wealthy at a time they (personally) least need the money. Spousal exemption is critical. Those inheriting the money probably won’t have done anything specifically to contribute to that wealth (there will be exceptions of course). Maybe therefore a more fair tax aimed at the wealthy.

Scrapping it will be seen as another Tory tax break for the richest, which Labour will / should play on.

Sunak and Hunt’s kids laughing all the way to the bank. 

Don't see as that is relevant. 

Currently, house values are high and younger folk struggle to get a mortgage. 

Whatever the reasons behind that, it remains a fact.

Is someone who has benefited can help someone who isn't in the same position, then they should be allowed to.

Someone can earn modestly throughout a career, but spend carefully and decide to forego expensive holidays etc to pursue a property in the the sticks for example. Then leave that to family.

At the end of their life, why should they be punished for not spending the money on other (more frivolous) things that someone else might have done?

It's all about choice, and the state shouldn't be swiping 40% off them because of it.

I bought a house at the right time, and now have plenty of equity in it. 

We don't earn massively between us, but by the time we retire we will still have that value and maybe will have a bit more behind us in addition.

Not inconceivable that by the time the value of the estate makes tax payable. 

That situation is likely to increase if property remains of a high value.

Then someone says actually, you can't have all your worth and pass it on.

A poor do.

[Winchester White]

32 minutes ago, globaldiver said:

I’ll not address the pointless deflection.

”the richest” will have paid (and do, if you check the statistics), so why should they pay more on death? 
 

 

It's not a deflection because you asked about the moral argument and I countered with a moral argument.

With a spousal estate, you are looking at over a million quid before this tax even gets a look in.

Why is it moral to remove this tax over say increasing the 40% threshold that has been frozen despite massive inflation?