Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
interesting. I see the validity of such a thing but not sure I 100% agree - thoughts?
Sort your family out with a few mil & teach them good values to stop them being awful children of rich parents, then give the rest to charity and chuck a couple of mil into freezing your head, obvs.
big billy g
Neither of us will need it, and even if we did, I don't think that either of us would feel right in taking it.
Interesting that this article comes out on the day that the government announces plans to make inheritance tax (which only affects 6% of estates anyway), virtually negligible.
*theme tune plays*
is like a John Carpenter soundtrack with all the jazzy flourishes taken out.
With house prices as high as they are (London average of over £400,000, single person inheritance tax threshold £325,000) I'm surprised it isn't a lot more than that.
It's been frozen by this government until 2015.
But no, if you were to increase the inheritance tax threshold in line with property value inflation then you would likely see the percentage of estates falling within it still remain at around 6%.
Big IF tho. And depends if you do it by London HPI or the real country
London's ridiculous HPI? In which case we penalise the rest of the country; or
Average HPI? In which we give London property owners an unfair advantage; or
Regional variances based on the HPI of the area you were living in when you died? In which we incentivise people to make arbitrary moves to poor areas of the country right before they die?
If it's pegged to London HPI then the rest of the country benefits;
If it's pegged to average HPI then London property owners are disproportionately affected.
Just trying to cram as much opinionating into my lucnhbreak as possible.
I "done a moker"
so your joint estate has to be worth £650,000 for it to be eligible. Plus there's a few criteria around pre-deceasing which means the £650k threshold is retained even if you're a widow/widower etc.
Actually, the threshold is taken from the tax year of the death.
i.e. the transferred tax relief if your spouse died between 6 April 2005 until 5 April 2006 would be GBP 275,000.
how difficult is it being you?
I reckon 9.75.
People who are beholden to the supposed principle/idea of inheritance tax being something about the root of all socialist evil terrify me. Although given how values of even modest estates in the South East have floated away from all semblance of logic - I am unsure as to what impact inheritance tax has any more. I'd smash it at about 90% across the top 2 deciles of estate value and about 75% across the next 3 as well myself.
Drastic times need drastic measures. Thatcher herself would be proud etc.
paying tax on something that's already been taxed. Which is rubbish obviously, as almost all estates are made up of property price inflation.
Plus, if you were going to use that argument, why not apply it to regressive taxes like VAT etc and just have everything done through income tax?
Not the only instance of double taxation etc.
that a high rate of inheritance tax is a pretty crude tool.
We think there's a big problem with wealth inequality and social immobility in this country.
I know! Let's tax the living shit out of all wealth when it would otherwise pass between generations!
The government will know what to do with it.
...and you can't solve all social mobility problems through the tax system. But, like I said, drastic times - drastic measures. I don't actually have an inherent problem with people passing down wealth through generations. It isn't, in itself, a problem. We currently have a problem with structural inequality of wealth in the UK now, however, and drastic steps need to be taken to redress it.
If massive hikes in inheritance tax are an inefficient means of doing so; fine. Not going to lose any sleep about something being crude though. Most of Thatcher's BIG POLICIES were crude as well.
*I know! Let's tax 40% out of all accrued wealth over £345,000 (double that for a couple), when it would otherwise be passed down to the comfortably-off fifty-something offspring.
That sounds much more reasonable that the 90%/75% proposal.
on the megadrive? I've got a hankering for some of that right now
i loved that game
Good call, me
but it's a lot easier for people to stomach than the policies that would genuinely make a difference to social mobility, meritocracy, and equality.
Abolishing regressive stealth taxes, limiting property ownership, capping rents, enforcing decent homes standards on landlords, improving tenant rights, providing free childcare, closing tax loopholes etc etc, but those are never going to happen in this country.
The justification for inheritance tax is a result of none of the above measures being taken, even if it has a fraction of the affects as the above and still allows huge, life-changing amounts of wealth to be passed between the generations.
except the affects/effects problem
so personally I think it's high time the millionaires started voting with their feet and encouraging essential social change
makes you wonder what the point of them getting rich was (spoiler: there's no point, you're all wasting your lives trying, give it up now and live in a commune NO COMEBACKS)
I've had to pay for everything myself - and even though I have a good job with a good wage (except I've quit - did I mention that?) - I still can't buy a house because I've never had the money to save much, or if I have saved it's gone on a car / wedding / engagement ring / honeymoon / rented flat deposit / laptop etc.
But I don't have parents to give me £20-40k to buy a house like most of my friends have had. So I get all the working class hero pride in paying my own way, but ultimately, I'm still toiling in rented property, fighting fires despite a decent wage.
In conclusion: I haven't read the article.
if you have brought your kids up well, then you should be able to trust them to do the right thing with what you leave them - invest in their future or their children's, charity etc. I'd say they could then maybe pursue an interest or get education in an area they may want to explore, but if they've grown up with the money backing them then maybe they wouldn't need that.
Probably because they were busy working away making their millions rather than bringing up their own kids.
You don't agree that these people should be able to decide that they aren't leaving their money to their children?
It's hard when it gets to the point where people are worth millions so it does seem excessive to leave that all to your child who may or may not be irresponsible with it but surely parents should leave SOMETHING if they can?
I've never had a rich family and it's more likely that I will be the one lending my parents money than the other way around but if my parents did have some small amount of money to give me after they die then I would be quite unhappy if they just said 'nah, not for you'.
By all means, encourage or even FORCE your children to live off their own means when they reach employment age and ensure that they are taught that they don't get something for nothing, but can't you at least leave a little bit behind? Just in case?
Not their right to choose - why would I be disagreeing with that?
In all seriousness though, this is an area I know little about. Do you still get taxed if you leave a whack of it to charitable causes?
if you leave a certain amount to charities.
if you leave > 10% to charity.
It hasn't been a hugely effective policy, so far.
This government seem to think that wealthy people like to give money away.
it hasn't been as effective is because of the stuff already mentioned upthread - the small number of estates it actually affects. Think the motivation behind the policy was to reduce IHT avoidance rather than to increase charitable revenues anyway.
One thing's for sure - wealthy people prefer to give their money to charity than to the government because they trust them to spend it better. Not sure how they work that out but there you go.
Should I inherit some money, I would spend more effectively, and to the greater benefit of the economy, than the Government would.
Never seems to move, doesn't look very fuel-efficient, no visible benefit to the economy. I'm doubting you.
and make an album of those sounds
that's what he thinks music is
you'd just buy stupid noise CDs from Japan. Unless you meant the greater benefit of the Japanese economy
Drone records not doctors!
Contact mics not carers!
let's get out of here
I'd really hate it if I died and my Halifax cash ISA was used to "pay down the debt left by Gordon Brown" or some absolute made-up shit that the government would disappear it into (remember this is pretty much verbatim what the tories said after it emerged that they'd stolen that estate left for 'whoever is in government' or whatnot).
Nobody in my family is really "rich" but my parents own their house and will retire comfortably (after 40+ years working in the NHS/third/public sectors). Part of why they've worked hard is so that me and my sisters can be more comfortable than they were as adults with young children and mortgages etc. Don't really buy into this whole "everyone needs to EARN their money through HARD GRAFT". As if being an investment banker is a good thing or something and doing a difficult low-paid job means you don't deserve as much. Or that having no financial security is character building or virtuous.
I also like having less pressure to get a really well-paid job and knowing that there's gonna always be a few grand in the bank waiting for me means I can do whatever it is I want to do for a living, including quite low-paid stuff (and also my children probably wont live in poverty).
If I actually thought that 100% inheritance tax would help people worse off than me and create a fairer society and economy, then I might think differently. I.e. if we lived in a socialist country with actual mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth then I'd be fine giving away any wealth that I don't necessarily need to be re-allocated by the state. But we don't and I think this whole 'inheritance tax' debate kinda apportions the responsibility to the wrong people. as if like all our parents are capitalists lol.
or reply saying they "don't agree" or something :(
was just trying to get the party started
i will pick up on this tho
'I'd be fine giving away any wealth that I don't necessarily need to be re-allocated by the state'
i know i'm taking this out of context, intentionally so as i'm not meaning to specifically challenge DD on this, but the concept of what people 'need' shifts dramatically with wealth acquisition, and a more expensive or less constricted lifestyle, so much so that it's a kindof meaningless phrase.
i imagine that the people in this article will, despite what they might say, have secured their offsprings future in terms of 'essentials' and then might give loads away to charity or whatever
is very much connected to things like the relations of production, labour market regulation, the welfare state and so on.
because of current material circumstances (high unemployment, low pay, poor conditions, lack of opportunities for young people, restricted welfare rights), the concept of 'need' is very much tied up with 'risk'. more people are at 'risk' of being affected by those problems. so taking away what for lots of people will be a source of financial security isn't necessarily really progressive (or helpful in the longterm).
it's a contested discursive concept with no definitional closure.
"a contested discursive concept with no definitional closure". it's up for discussion. aren't you meant to be quite smart? :/
in this instance, isn't worth having. It's not a basis for IHT policy making.
general consensus seems to be that socialism is the only answer for a fair and free society. with marckee as prime minister of the world.
(like the dudes in the article) - or the security being eroded by government taxation?
"If I actually thought that 100% inheritance tax would help people worse off than me and create a fairer society and economy, then I might think differently. I.e. if we lived in a socialist country with actual mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth then I'd be fine giving away any wealth that I don't necessarily need to be re-allocated by the state."
Could you not say the same about all taxation?
so then the question becomes what makes "wealth" different from other taxation, if that *is* fit to be re-allocated by the state?
(maybe it does. I'm piss poor at this stuff)
manatees and idea balls
I think what I'm interested in is if DD's position is "for reasons xyz I am fine with the govt handling most taxation but not inheritance tax (or all current taxation but not increase IT?)", or "I wouldn't be up for increased IT because current gov't redistribution is shitty and that would be giving them more to redistribute", or another thing.
i'm definitely not fine with the way that the government currently handles all other tax. and the way the tax and social security system works *doesn't* redistribute wealth (in any meaningful sense anyway).
I think income tax should be totally reconfigured too (and council tax and VAT and corporation tax etc). I just don't think anyone should feel that bad about inheriting ~£100,000 or whatever (fyi i'm not getting anything like that) when it's deemed ok to earn millions and pay no tax. it actually really suits the ruling class for us to all feel guilty about our reasonably good and comfortable living standards when people are living in poverty. totally not the actual problem though.
I'm not against inheritance tax per se (did only talk about 100% inheritance tax). I just don't see much difference between earned wealth which is superfluous and inherited wealth which is superfluous.
where we DEFINITELY DON'T tax the very rich people/capitalists/capital, taking away 100% of the property of those on middle incomes is perverse. It might generate a bit of revenue but doesn't make the system really any fairer as a whole and still protects the real elite who continue monopolising and tax avoiding.
I'd argue that we don't actually have mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth currently. We have a (very unfair) tax system which generates enough money to run some basic public services. But I don't agree that, for example, the reason why there are cuts to public services and benefits is cause the bill for the tax payer is just too high.
to some extent yeah you can say the same about all taxation under capitalism. but I think a focus on inheritance tax misses the point - it's as if it's somehow a progressive solution, or people who keep property which they've inherited are more greedy than those with earned wealth. why don't we all siphon off everything we've earned over and above the living wage and give it to people who earn below that amount? again, i'd be all for that if we didn't live in a capitalist society with almost zero job security and no employment and welfare rights.
and give it to people who earn below that amount?"
100% inheritance tax under the current system isn't a good idea.
I earn less than £8,000 a year and I'm on a zero hours contract. If I want to continue doing this kind of thing, I will earn less than the average salary and will probably have to take out a large loan. taking away the house my parents have spent their entire lives paying loads of money for (to a private company which made a profit out of the transaction) wouldn't be a fair or effective way of distributing wealth.
it doesn't really matter if it's a good idea does it?
and it has the potential to frame our ideas about redistribution of wealth. ie. very important political question.
and ill squeeze yours
whether he likes it or not
on ethically dubious recreational pharmaceuticals and hookers, or forfeited to provide 1 day travelcards for the home counties.
I'd watch it.
Brentdan Rogers: "You want to buy Luis Suarez? You know what happened last time. You're going to have to offer something more than £50m +£1. What else are you putting on the table?"
Sir John Chippendale "Chips" Lindley Keswick: "Err... I can throw in a pair of skis, a badminton racquet and a Tottenham shirt, size XS."
Brentdan Rogers: "Throw in that bike frame and it's a deal."