Org Mobile Site
Thread: UK Budget- The Axe Falls
especially given that most people who get hit by inheritence tax now are being taxed on money that has already been taxed.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
especially given that most people who get hit by inheritence tax now are being taxed on money that has already been taxed.
I believe that the classic counter to that is that:especially given that most people who get hit by inheritence tax now are being taxed on money that has already been taxed.
You, not your "heirs" have a personal ownership/have earned those monies and been taxed on same. The state is taxing the "income" the inheritance represents to your heirs.
Others go further, arguing that the accumulation of wealth across multiple generations is directly counterproductive to a healthy society in that it leads to an entrenched elite who can be expected to pursue their own advantage at the expense of those less privileged. This sub-set believes that, upon death, all wealth (or at least most of it) should escheat to the state. The would-have-been heirs will still retain some advantages (likely had better schooling, healthcare when under their parent's care etc.) but will have to "make their own way" as does everyone else -- thereby avoiding the creation of a permanent elite based on wealth.
I more or less loathe this form of taxation myself.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
I believe that the classic counter to that is that:
You, not your "heirs" have a personal ownership/have earned those monies and been taxed on same. The state is taxing the "income" the inheritance represents to your heirs.
Others go further, arguing that the accumulation of wealth across multiple generations is directly counterproductive to a healthy society in that it leads to an entrenched elite who can be expected to pursue their own advantage at the expense of those less privileged. This sub-set believes that, upon death, all wealth (or at least most of it) should escheat to the state. The would-have-been heirs will still retain some advantages (likely had better schooling, healthcare when under their parent's care etc.) but will have to "make their own way" as does everyone else -- thereby avoiding the creation of a permanent elite based on wealth.
I more or less loathe this form of taxation myself.
i don't have any truck with either of those arguments.I believe that the classic counter to that is that:
You, not your "heirs" have a personal ownership/have earned those monies and been taxed on same. The state is taxing the "income" the inheritance represents to your heirs.
Others go further, arguing that the accumulation of wealth across multiple generations is directly counterproductive to a healthy society in that it leads to an entrenched elite who can be expected to pursue their own advantage at the expense of those less privileged. This sub-set believes that, upon death, all wealth (or at least most of it) should escheat to the state. The would-have-been heirs will still retain some advantages (likely had better schooling, healthcare when under their parent's care etc.) but will have to "make their own way" as does everyone else -- thereby avoiding the creation of a permanent elite based on wealth.
I more or less loathe this form of taxation myself.
the money has already been taxed, and i reject any notion that what i have is an impediement to someone else experiencing a harmonious society. people who worry too much about what other people have, and whose solution to this angst is to find a mechanism to remove it from them, are deeply flawed individuals who would make everyones life better if spent their energy enjoying their own instead.
i too loath this on principle, and i don't come from a wealthy family, or expect to see any sizable inheritence.
The best known way of redistributing inherited wealth is to wait a few generations. If a family's wealth can survive 3 or 4 generational transitions, they are doing something right and shouldn't be punished. 
You misunderstand me Beskar, the two points were completely separate. I wan't trying to imply that a lot of people are affected by inheritance tax.
My first point was that inheritance tax is some form of wealth tax. I'm addressing people saying "we don't really do wealth tax in the UK". Of course there's also council tax.
The second point was about wealth taxes in general, and how I find them to be unfair compared to income or consumption based taxes.
My first point was that inheritance tax is some form of wealth tax. I'm addressing people saying "we don't really do wealth tax in the UK". Of course there's also council tax.
The second point was about wealth taxes in general, and how I find them to be unfair compared to income or consumption based taxes.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
the money has already been taxed
All money has been taxed at some point. The money you pay income tax on has already been taxed in the form of corporation tax, and VAT before that, and income tax before that etc etc. Money is often taxed when it changes hands, so the idea that 'the money has already been taxed' isn't very meaningful.the money has already been taxed
The multiple tax problem is one of the criticisms levelled at VAT. Especially for pensioners who were taxed on their income, are taxed on their pension and are continually taxed on their spending.
Originally Posted by Myrddraal:
All money has been taxed at some point. The money you pay income tax on has already been taxed in the form of corporation tax, and VAT before that, and income tax before that etc etc. Money is often taxed when it changes hands, so the idea that 'the money has already been taxed' isn't very meaningful.
it is when it is my money, or my families money. there is nothing good about inheritence tax.All money has been taxed at some point. The money you pay income tax on has already been taxed in the form of corporation tax, and VAT before that, and income tax before that etc etc. Money is often taxed when it changes hands, so the idea that 'the money has already been taxed' isn't very meaningful.
Originally Posted by :
it is when it is my money
Are you saying that if you owned a business, then your employees shouldn't have to pay income tax, because you're paying them with your money? Your families money != your money, just like your employers money != your money. it is when it is my money
Originally Posted by :
there is nothing good about inheritence tax.
I wouldn't agree that there is nothing good about inheritance tax, but there's enough wrong with it to persuade me it's a bad thing without having to make up extra reasons. The idea that it shouldn't be taxed because someone else has already paid tax on it is a bit... silly?there is nothing good about inheritence tax.
[edit]
Originally Posted by :
A market rate has to be paid for use
I had heard that with property, there is some legal block to this. Even if you gift your house to your heirs seven years before your death, if you keep living in it your heirs still have to pay inheritance tax. Is that right?A market rate has to be paid for use
Originally Posted by Myrddraal:
Are you saying that if you owned a business, then your employees shouldn't have to pay income tax, because you're paying them with your money? Your families money != your money, just like your employers money != your money.
I wouldn't agree that there is nothing good about inheritance tax, but there's enough wrong with it to persuade me it's a bad thing without having to make up extra reasons. The idea that it shouldn't be taxed because someone else has already paid tax on it is a bit... silly?
there is a difference between public and private sphere of influence that can be quite clearly be delineated by a legally registered company.Are you saying that if you owned a business, then your employees shouldn't have to pay income tax, because you're paying them with your money? Your families money != your money, just like your employers money != your money.
I wouldn't agree that there is nothing good about inheritance tax, but there's enough wrong with it to persuade me it's a bad thing without having to make up extra reasons. The idea that it shouldn't be taxed because someone else has already paid tax on it is a bit... silly?
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
No help if you get hit by a bus the day after handing it over.
agreed, its a stupid fudge to get around the inequity of inheritance tax, which does nothing to avoid the reality that the fudge works very inefficiently and props up a method of tax that shouldn't be executed in the first place.No help if you get hit by a bus the day after handing it over.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO