UK Budget- The Axe Falls

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 07-02-2010, 09:20

Originally Posted by Beskar

I don't think Heaven(or Hell) will accept my direct debit card.

It was only in history where possessions were buried along with the dead occupier, because they believed these items followed them to the afterlife.

Written more seriously, the wealth accumulated and earned is from the person who received it in the first place. If they decide they want to pay it all before they die, it is up to them or not. When you die, your possessions don't come with you, they get passed onto others anyway and the "death tax" doesn't affect 90% of the population or so. So those who would need the wealth the most, are unaffected.

You completely missed my point, so let me be explicit. After the Norman Conquest William essentially used inherritence tax to alter the balance of magnate power in his favour.

In any case, I think you'll find that inherritence tax affects far more that 10% of the population, you can run foul of it with a big house and a classic car. Should you be forced to sell those just because the tax man wants his cut?

Inherritence tax takes no account of liquidity.

**rory_20_uk** · 07-02-2010, 13:07

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

In any case, I think you'll find that inherritence tax affects far more that 10% of the population, you can run foul of it with a big house and a classic car. Should you be forced to sell those just because the tax man wants his cut?

Yes. They're not yours yet - you inherited it. You did nothing for it whatsoever besides being alive.

**Beskar** · 07-02-2010, 16:24

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

In any case, I think you'll find that inherritence tax affects far more that 10% of the population, you can run foul of it with a big house and a classic car. Should you be forced to sell those just because the tax man wants his cut?

Re-mortage the house, then use the re-mortage to pay the Taxman his cut. You don't have to sell anything. Either way, it wasn't your property in the first place, it was some one elses.

**Vladimir** · 07-02-2010, 16:26

Originally Posted by Beskar

Re-mortage the house, then use the re-mortage to pay the Taxman his cut. You don't have to sell anything. Either way, it wasn't your property in the first place, it was some one elses.

That's the point!

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 07-02-2010, 23:56

Originally Posted by Beskar

Re-mortage the house, then use the re-mortage to pay the Taxman his cut. You don't have to sell anything. Either way, it wasn't your property in the first place, it was some one elses.

So get into dept to pay the tax man? Idiotic, especially in the current climate.

You are quite correct it wasn't yours, but it was your family's, and you undertook no economic activity to obtain it; it was gifted to you. Morally, it's worse than taxing children for recieving Christmas presents, because at least there no bereavement is involved.

**Beskar** · 07-03-2010, 00:22

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

So get into dept to pay the tax man? Idiotic, especially in the current climate.

You are quite correct it wasn't yours, but it was your family's, and you undertook no economic activity to obtain it; it was gifted to you. Morally, it's worse than taxing children for recieving Christmas presents, because at least there no bereavement is involved.

It wouldn't be "going into debt" since the mortage would be on the house you want. Even then, it depends on how much money is going to single claimants as this also affects the rate, and money going to charity isn't taxed at all.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 07-03-2010, 01:53

Originally Posted by Beskar

It wouldn't be "going into debt" since the mortage would be on the house you want. Even then, it depends on how much money is going to single claimants as this also affects the rate, and money going to charity isn't taxed at all.

Morgage is debt, per definition.

Let me make it simpler, when my Father dies, hopefully at least a few decades from now, I should be able to have his knives, rifles, his motorbike, and anything else he chooses to live me without having to pay the state the privilage of recieving his personnal possessions. If he chose me to give me the house my sister and I gre up in, I shouldn't have to pay for that either.

Inherritence is not an economic activity.

**rory_20_uk** · 07-03-2010, 10:26

So then your family has more, including land.

A family has one child. They die and pass all holdings onto the one child. He got married and his wife is also a single child. Her family pass on their possessions to her. In the meantime, they bought a place to live.

They have a child. When they die, they pass on the 3 properties (which are rented out) to the child. If he marries a single child their family will soon have a massive portfolio of holdings which drift down the generations.

And so on, and so on.