Inheritance Tax

[eFestivals]

You've made that point twice, and I've responded to it twice. If you'd care to debate the points I made in those posts, instead of cherrypicking 1 or 2, then I'll respond, but I'm not going to write the same thing a third time just for you to ignore it and then post the same thing again in a page or two.

I've just used the search function on the word 'murder' and failed to find you addressing it even once. But if you'd like to give me a link to where you do, i'll be happy to read it.

(I'll admit to not having bothered to read your posts .... reading the first few words where you set up the ground to avoid the issue of inheritance taxes has made clear there's little point reading on).

Meanwhile, the point remains: every single law we have is ineffective to some extent, but that's no reason to abandon those laws.

And the point remains, that taxes exist and aren't going to disappear any time soon.

So if you want to try and keep the argument onto taxes and not specifically the merits or not of inheritance taxes against other alternative taxes, I'll bugger up that plan and ask you to justify why the living's rewards on merit should be targeted for taxes before the dead have been taxed for what they have no need for.

Edited July 8, 2014 by eFestivals

[eoJ]

I've just used the search function on the word 'murder' and failed to find you addressing it even once. But if you'd like to give me a link to where you do, i'll be happy to read it.

(I'll admit to not having bothered to read your posts .... reading the first few words where you set up the ground to avoid the issue of inheritance taxes has made clear there's little point reading on).

Re the latter part, then what's the point in participating? I've read every single post in this thread, and taken time to respond to every point made (admittedly, sometimes asking questions first to allow myself to give a reply that does the poster justice). The point of a debate isn't to have an argument, it's to try and convince the other person of your points (even if your two views are different), and hopefully leave both people with a modified outlook at the end, even if their views may still not completely match.

The posts that you skipped, or at least, only responded to a sentence or two, from page 5 & 6 (only including ones that were responding directly to you):

http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/187376-inheritance-tax/page-5#entry4438591 (second half addresses your points)

http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/187376-inheritance-tax/page-5#entry4439109

http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/187376-inheritance-tax/page-5#entry4439185 (after the edit)

http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/187376-inheritance-tax/page-6#entry4439298

Posts mentioning the murderer point:

http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/187376-inheritance-tax/page-5#entry4438585

http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/187376-inheritance-tax/page-5#entry4438967

Meanwhile, the point remains: every single law we have is ineffective to some extent, but that's no reason to abandon those laws.

If you read those, and reply to them, you have my word that I'll reply to that.

And the point remains, that taxes exist and aren't going to disappear any time soon.

You can vote with your wallet though. And while that's true, the same could be said about the ability to avoid them, and the fact that for anyone who's earning enough for their personal taxation to be a serious issue, paying tax will remain a moral issue, not a legal one.

So if you want to try and keep the argument onto taxes and not specifically the merits or not of inheritance taxes against other alternative taxes, I'll bugger up that plan and ask you to justify why the living's rewards on merit should be targeted for taxes before the dead have been taxed for what they have no need for.

I can do either But no, if there was genuinely a way to effectively tax the dead, I'd be inclined to agree with you (although it's a difficult one, because as I brought up, you have to then propose a way to ban all gifts of any kind, which obviously raises many issues, both morally and legally). IHT as it stands though, is not a tax on death, or receiving money from the dead, but a tax on sudden death, arguably the most painful kind already.

Edited July 8, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

I can do either But no, if there was genuinely a way to effectively tax the dead

there is.

People like you choose to ignore it, no differently to how a murder chooses to ignore the murder laws, or a benefit cheat ignores the benefit laws. Nothing of that changes just because the alternative option you might take might happen to be legal; you've still chosen to not obey a law that exists.

You can choose to dress that fact up in as many different ways as you like, but your motivation is to avoid those taxes.

And by doing so, you deny the principles of meritocracy, that it's hard work that should bring reward.

I'd be inclined to agree with you (although it's a difficult one, because as I brought up, you have to then propose a way to ban all gifts of any kind, which obviously raises many issues, both morally and legally).

as far as I'm aware (it certainly used to be the case) there is a limit to the size of gift that anyone can be given in any year without it being subject to income tax.

If it's been abolished it only gets to show how tories regard income taxes as something for only the little people.

IHT as it stands though, is not a tax on death, or receiving money from the dead, but a tax on sudden death, arguably the most painful kind already.

If you wish to view your deliberate decision to deny that money to the taxman as being the opposite of a tax on sudden death, that's a matter for your conscience.

[feral chile]

Then that's where public opinion lies. People see and are informed that due to the fact that no one's donating, roads won't be built or maintained. People think 'oh, roads are important, and we're fucked without them, plus my car got a bent axle from a pothole last week, better give them some money.'. Although the local meeting voting for how the money from the lazy tax-votes will be allocated (prior to the tax-votes) would negate that.

And then they notice that people are only donating to things that they'll benefit from, and lots of things are getting missed out, and some won't donate to anything, because they think why should they, and they won't see that feeding the poor means less crime, so maybe they won't need to donate so much to the police and courts, and the private army they have to employ to keep themselves and their property safe. And disease is rife, because nobody wants to donate to the sewer charity and there's human waste gathering in the streets.

Then, just before society disintegrates completely, someone says: 'I know. Why don't we create a voluntary donation system (PAYE is voluntary) whereby people donate an amount proportionate to what they can afford, and we'll have a central committee with an eye on the big picture, so that no essential service gets overlooked. In essence, let's organise these donations so as to put an end to all this chaos. Wonder why nobody thought of that before?'

[feral chile]

This is a logical justification of why taxation works:

http://www.distributive-justice.com/theory/rawls-en.htm

Rawls:

A liberal author who tries to determine principles of just society with the help of hypothetical contract among members of a society. It is supposed that individuals who make this contract primarily care for their self-interest, that they are rational, well informed about human nature and functioning of society, and that they are placed under so called veil of ignorance. This last and the most important condition means that they do not know anything about those of their characteristics and circumstances that might influence impartiality of the decision-making. Since economic talent belongs to those characteristics, and since every party to the contract is afraid (not knowing his willingness to accept risks) that he could discover that he lacks such a talent after the veil is lifted, but at the same time wants to secure to himself as good position as possible, the difference principle will be chosen. It says that economic inequalities are allowed but only if they benefit even the least advantaged individuals. Namely, at the first glance it seems that this approach would induce individuals to chose strict equality among all members of their society. However, such a decision would not be beneficial to anyone because in that case the talented individuals would not want to work as productively as they otherwise could, which would result in inferior wealth of the whole society. Therefore, even those who are afraid that they might discover that they are the least advantaged (all the parties to the Rawlsian contract feel such a fear), would accept to grant greater share of resources to the talented but only if the latter give them some part of their extra wealth. This principle is in practice viewed as a justification of progressive taxation of the rich.

[eFestivals]

Inheritance Tax is like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted....

We should be much more concerned about taxing income properly as it is earned on a corporate / individual basis.

I think the majority of people dislike inheritance tax. I think most people like the concept of leaving behind their assets for their love ones and don't really want government in the way of that.

Just for the record I will almost certainly inherit in years to come but nothing near the point where I will pay the tax.

As for taxing "gifts"... It getting in the land of silly....

Why? It's income for the recipient. Why should it be treated differently?

You say above "Inheritance Tax is like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted", and then you give your approval to a method of bolting.

I totally understand the idea that we want to ensure our own have the best chance after our death, but the simple fact is the world has more than just our own within it. Why should others not get the same future opportunities as our own?

If you believe in equality of opportunity (as much as is possible), and in rewards in life that are earned and deserved (as much as is possible), then you should also believe in trying to bring about the equality you say you believe in.

It's perfectly possible to level the inequalities that happen thru inheritance or gifting, and have things so that everyone benefits from the surplus cash that is not needed by the person who has legitimately earned it for themselves.

It's certainly makes more logical sense than to put a greater tax burden onto the living for what they're earning, to the benefit of those who have no need for their spare cash.

[eFestivals]

Depends on your view of the world Neil....

You either view people as free individuals or you view them as the toy of the state. We all know your viewpoint Mr Red....

We obviously have a number of public services we need and we should all pay towards. And like was said in the past, if you don't like some of the offering then you have the choice of voting to change things... but outside of that you have to pay the tax to pay for the service.

You say "have to pay the tax..."

(my bolding)

No. You have to pay a range of different taxes, which can be altered in any way that might be thought up, and the same amount of money raised.

The vast majority of those taxes come for the current hard work of living people.

You could pay much less in income tax, and keep more of what you earn, without any other impact onto your life or money. It's the best "free money" offer you will ever get.

And you're turning it down.

You, the man who loves money and likes to say that you deserve every penny you receive.

I think we all accept here that the MASSIVE avoidance undertaken by major multi-nationals in one of the major reasons why we seem to be unable to pay for the public services we need. Also the avoidance on a personal level clearly has an impact.

Tax avoidance is a separate issue from what should be taxed (such as inheritance or gifts that are essentially the same).

I suggest if this was not the case then taxes collected on "earned" income would allow us to pay for the services we want / need.

again, an irrelevance to whether taxes should firstly be collected from those who have need of money, or firstly from those who have no need of money.

Anyone who is focusing on inheritance tax as method to pay our way is doing it on more idealogical grounds rather than on ensuring we can afford the services we need

Absolutely, it's ideological.

The ideology that this country claims to operate to (by all major and nearly all minor parties) is one of a meritocracy - where people get their rewards via their own efforts.

This why we constantly hear politicans speak of "hard working families".

So why don't they follow thru on that idelology? Perhaps, just perhaps, they're liars.

Btw, I'm not "focusing on inheritance tax as method to pay our way", I'm focusing on inheritance tax as the first method by which we pay our way" - not quite the same thing.

It's better to heavily tax money that is unneeded by the person who earned it than to heavily tax money that is needed by the person who earned it.

But you bsay differently...?

Why tax someone beyond the point of need ? It seems like the state becoming overbearing to me. Its a form of social engineering. I think after paying your taxes you should be left alone. You shouldn't face a death tax. Its your money after you have paid the primary tax in my mind.

talk about you not understanding the discussion.

I can see why you are a big fan of it but its a tax that is a clumsy tool and isn't very progressive either.

PMSL - it's the most progressive tax there ever can be. It's unneeded money FFS!!!!

If you get the taxation right on primary earned taxes then I don't see a need for inheritance tax. Unless you are a raving Commi like Neil...

So you don't think anyone would ever accumulate more money than they might need under your perfect tax system, then?

That's a thousand miles to the left of anything I've ever uttered, as it seems to be passing you by.

[eFestivals]

I love some of the concepts you come up. Like people having more money than they "need"....

So it begs the question... What do we all need ? and how do you get stuff beyond that need in your commi utopia

I am guessing my three holidays a year are out... So how many holidays can I have ? and who decides ? and where can I go ?

In what I've been saying, what a person "needs" is what they spend.

Anything left over, that they might give away or might be left over when they die, is unneeded.

In what i'm suggesting, NOTHING gets taken via an inheritance or gifting tax that the wealthy person "needs".

The wealthy person gets to enjoy *everything* they earn and can spend (subject to any other taxes, of course).

So the wealthy person loses nothing and society gets to be more equal and YOU pay less in taxes on what you earn.

What's not to like?

[eoJ]

there is.

People like you choose to ignore it, no differently to how a murder chooses to ignore the murder laws, or a benefit cheat ignores the benefit laws. Nothing of that changes just because the alternative option you might take might happen to be legal; you've still chosen to not obey a law that exists.

You can choose to dress that fact up in as many different ways as you like, but your motivation is to avoid those taxes.

And by doing so, you deny the principles of meritocracy, that it's hard work that should bring reward.

And there I was thinking from your previous post that things would have changed, and your arguments would primarily focus on mine (without cherrypicking), instead of me. I don't ask that you read or respond to every word I post, but at least that you read the ones responding directly to you, and respond to them if you take issue. A sensible debate is not possible otherwise, as I have to repeat myself over and over for your benefit, with no advantage (as this stops you from being able to see the other side of the argument, leaving your mind closed, and giving me no opportunity to truly see the other side of the argument). 'People like you'.

as far as I'm aware (it certainly used to be the case) there is a limit to the size of gift that anyone can be given in any year without it being subject to income tax.

If it's been abolished it only gets to show how tories regard income taxes as something for only the little people.

Trusts have existed for a very long time, long prior to the Whigs and Tories. However, gifts would be liable to CGT, not income tax.

If you wish to view your deliberate decision to deny that money to the taxman as being the opposite of a tax on sudden death, that's a matter for your conscience.

A point I made in my previous post.

paying tax will remain a moral issue, not a legal one.

And then they notice that people are only donating to things that they'll benefit from, and lots of things are getting missed out, and some won't donate to anything, because they think why should they, and they won't see that feeding the poor means less crime, so maybe they won't need to donate so much to the police and courts, and the private army they have to employ to keep themselves and their property safe. And disease is rife, because nobody wants to donate to the sewer charity and there's human waste gathering in the streets.

Then, just before society disintegrates completely, someone says: 'I know. Why don't we create a voluntary donation system (PAYE is voluntary) whereby people donate an amount proportionate to what they can afford, and we'll have a central committee with an eye on the big picture, so that no essential service gets overlooked. In essence, let's organise these donations so as to put an end to all this chaos. Wonder why nobody thought of that before?'

Things like feeding the poor would be done at a local level. Relatively few things need to be done nationally.

You wouldn't donate to the sewer body if your street was filling up with human waste?

Finally, if people feel that others in your town aren't paying their share, then it's a simple 'go on, fuck off' (although the peer pressure from the town and boycotting - for example, the local newsagent refusing to sell you anything, would likely make you either want to pay tax, or not want to hang around for long). However, very few people have zero morals. People may contribute less in tax than another in a different part of the country on a similar income, but allow them to have a true say in making sure their tax is spent sensibly, and virtually all will pay some.

Then, just before society disintegrates completely, someone says: 'I know. Why don't we create a voluntary donation system (PAYE is voluntary) whereby people donate an amount proportionate to what they can afford, and we'll have a central committee with an eye on the big picture, so that no essential service gets overlooked. In essence, let's organise these donations so as to put an end to all this chaos. Wonder why nobody thought of that before?'

You've just outlined my system essentially. The central committee is small and local, and anyone living in the locality is part of it, if they turn up to the meetings. That committee decides how the money from the lazy taxvotes is allocated. In this age of computers, it also wouldn't be hard to make the tax form for the non-lazy prefilled with the lazy taxvotes, with the ability to remove or add however you wish (but thereby having to make a clear step to say 'no, I don't want to contribute anything to a sewage body').

This is a logical justification of why taxation works:

http://www.distributive-justice.com/theory/rawls-en.htm

Rawls:

That's a long and complex block of text, so I've paragraphed it.

A liberal author who tries to determine principles of just society with the help of hypothetical contract among members of a society. It is supposed that individuals who make this contract primarily care for their self-interest, that they are rational, well informed about human nature and functioning of society, and that they are placed under so called veil of ignorance.

This last and the most important condition means that they do not know anything about those of their characteristics and circumstances that might influence impartiality of the decision-making.

Since economic talent belongs to those characteristics, and since every party to the contract is afraid (not knowing his willingness to accept risks) that he could discover that he lacks such a talent after the veil is lifted, but at the same time wants to secure to himself as good position as possible, the difference principle will be chosen. It says that economic inequalities are allowed but only if they benefit even the least advantaged individuals.

Namely, at the first glance it seems that this approach would induce individuals to chose strict equality among all members of their society. However, such a decision would not be beneficial to anyone because in that case the talented individuals would not want to work as productively as they otherwise could, which would result in inferior wealth of the whole society.

Therefore, even those who are afraid that they might discover that they are the least advantaged (all the parties to the Rawlsian contract feel such a fear), would accept to grant greater share of resources to the talented but only if the latter give them some part of their extra wealth. This principle is in practice viewed as a justification of progressive taxation of the rich.

I'll primarily address the last part.

Therefore, even those who are afraid that they might discover that they are the least advantaged (all the parties to the Rawlsian contract feel such a fear), would accept to grant greater share of resources to the talented but only if the latter give them some part of their extra wealth. This principle is in practice viewed as a justification of progressive taxation of the rich.

This relies on the proposed hypothetical that no one knows anything about their own characteristics. In reality though, people do, and will have an idea of how advantaged they are. Also, greater share of resources (are we talking in terms of money?) to the talented in exchange for getting money back is not currently the contract. Footballers have been previously mentioned, and I think few would argue that they're not talented. However, as people who travel a lot, often they pay very little tax, yet still earn plenty.

While lack of tax-paying may influence our decision whether or not to pay someone money, it's not the contract condition - the main contract condition is that you will receive the enjoyment of their services in exchange for giving them money, and that you will continue to pay them money until you no longer receive enjoyment from their services, or come across someone who provides you better value.

This idea seems to rely on the fact that we are all born equal, and only later become talented, which isn't the case. In terms of intelligence, for example, right when someone comes out of the womb, you may be able to tell with certainty that they'll be more intelligent than the baby in the next hospital bed over.

I think we all accept here that the MASSIVE avoidance undertaken by major multi-nationals in one of the major reasons why we seem to be unable to pay for the public services we need. Also the avoidance on a personal level clearly has an impact.

I would personally argue that's a symptom, rather than a cause. It's the politicians who decide how tax money is spent, and with the adversorial system, it's always in the other party's interest to make the ruling party look bad. Other than that, I have no major issues with what you've said.

Edited July 9, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

Unlike you I don't care if the guy next door has more money than he might "need" in my own subjective reality...

Nor do I if he's wealthy via his own efforts.

I only really care about if we are affording the public services we need. Which is the whole reason for raising tax.

Absolutely.

and that tax can be raised firstly from those that need their money, or it can be raised firstly from those who don't need their money.

Why do you think you personally should as greater proportion of what you earn towards society than the idle?

You do realise you're argiuing against almost everything you've ever said about what you deserve for yourself, don't you?

You just come across as a very jealous and unhappy man who is angry at where his own failures in life have left him.

PMSL

You really have a tiny mind, don't you? You don't believe that it's possible to be more civic minded that you think you are.

[eFestivals]

And there I was thinking from your previous post that things would have changed, and your arguments would primarily focus on mine (without cherrypicking), instead of me.

I'm ignoring your irrelevnces, in the same why you're avoiding the issue.

As far as i'm concerned this is a discussion about the merits (or not) of inheritance tax compared to other taxes - you know, the real world - and not about whether taxes should exist or not.

Taxes DO exist and we have no meaningful choice with that, but we do have a meaningful choice over WHAT is taxed.

So: why should the living be taxed at a high level, when unneeded money could be higher-taxed and reduce the tax on the living?

Edited July 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[eoJ]

I'm ignoring your irrelevnces, in the same why you're avoiding the issue.

As I previously stated, any questions asked instead of answering are merely to understand the point made. Your debating style seems to be:

"Things suck for people in Africa, and unfortunately, it'll probably remain that way for a while."

"I think we need to give everyone in Africa the same health and education system we have here, why don't you agree with that?"

"That would be nice, but how do you plan on doing that?"

"Stop avoiding the question! Go on, answer, why shouldn't we give the same systems we have here to Africa?"

"..."

How can that result in logical, interesting discussion, instead of bickering?

Re everything after that, I'm not going to bother wasting my time replying just so you can skip reading my reply. Read my responses to you, respond to the points you have issue with, and I'll be happy to continue discussing it with you.

[eFestivals]

But you so clearly are given many of your other stances...

nope, that's merely the result of the limits of your intelligence, that has you screaming "COMMIE" at anything you cannot understand.

[eFestivals]

I think the concept of financial planning and not being a burden on the state by having rainy day savings, pensions, investments and so on is lost on Neil

or alternatively, my words have been completely lost on you.

(that's the truth of things).

In what i'm suggesting, only unneeded money is taken - from the dead!!!

The dead have no need of "rainy day savings, pensions, investments and so on".

I also think the concept of Family is different for you than some. When my daughter turns 18 I won't be turning my back on her. I will always support her where I can and I hope she will support me back. That could be with love and kindness... That might be paying bills when I can't and so on...

And if society was structured more fairly, more than just your daughter could have those same things.

If they're good enough for your daughter, surely you think they're good enough for all others too?

This idea of total individuality is laughable really....

It is, which is why what you're saying is making me laugh. A lot.

In sadness at how you struggle with simple things.

I don't see why the state needs huge chunks of already taxed income. Like we have agreed... It is just idealogical silliness...

why is it silly to tax the living more than we do the dead?

An answer would be nice.

[eFestivals]

Considering Neil has admitted its ideological silliness.

If you're losing the argument, just make it up. Eh Barry?

It's ideological. It's not silly.

What is silly is to allow unneeded money to taxed at a much lesser rate than needed money is taxed at?

Edited July 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[eoJ]

An answer would be nice.

I agree. http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/187376-inheritance-tax/page-6#entry4439473

[eFestivals]

As I previously stated, any questions asked instead of answering are merely to understand the point made.

No, they're not. Your questions are about avoiding the point.

For all the while we have taxes, those taxes will have to be raised in some manner.

One manner is to firstly tax inheritance (or gifts given prior to death as a form of inheritance) - unneeded money by the person who acquired it.

Another method is to instead harder tax the living on their own efforts.

It's very simple, to say which of these is preferable to you and why, but you've avoided doing so over seven pages so far.

Edited July 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I agree. http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/187376-inheritance-tax/page-6#entry4439473

This is a thread about the merits (or not) of inheritance tax compared to other taxes. Nothing of those questions are about that.

It's very simple to say which of these is preferable to you and why.

[eFestivals]

You totally avoided the points I put forward Idiot

I addressed them, all, even the points you raised that demonstrate you've understood zilch.

You're voting yourself to pay higher taxes and for the very wealthy to pay none.

And you don't even realise that you are.

[eFestivals]

Go on Barry, as you say i've avoiding your points, ask me a direct question, and you'll get it answered.

[eFestivals]

As I previously stated, any questions asked instead of answering are merely to understand the point made. Your debating style seems to be:

"Things suck for people in Africa, and unfortunately, it'll probably remain that way for a while."

"I think we need to give everyone in Africa the same health and education system we have here, why don't you agree with that?"

"That would be nice, but how do you plan on doing that?"

"Stop avoiding the question! Go on, answer, why shouldn't we give the same systems we have here to Africa?"

"..."

How can that result in logical, interesting discussion, instead of bickering?

Re everything after that, I'm not going to bother wasting my time replying just so you can skip reading my reply. Read my responses to you, respond to the points you have issue with, and I'll be happy to continue discussing it with you.

How do you think we might collect inheritance (and gifting) taxes? The same way as other taxes are collected.

Those are very pointless words. We already have inheritance and gifting taxes (tho at a low level) and they get collected.

[eFestivals]

The posts that you skipped, or at least, only responded to a sentence or two, from page 5 & 6 (only including ones that were responding directly to you):

http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/187376-inheritance-tax/page-5#entry4438591 (second half addresses your points)

http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/187376-inheritance-tax/page-5#entry4439109

http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/187376-inheritance-tax/page-5#entry4439185 (after the edit)

http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/187376-inheritance-tax/page-6#entry4439298

all questions from there addressed below....

Are you talking specifically in regards to my example?

yes.

Define all taxes. Taxes under the current system, or taxes for individual public services?

any tax you might think up.

The government shouldn't try?

they can and they do and they succeed.

Taxes are morally objectionable?

not unless supporting your fellow man in need is morally objectionable.

From whose perspective are you talking, the government's, or society/individuals'?

All.

We should scrap taxation altogether?

No.

You're trying to create a strawman here.

I've just wet myself.

'I suspect Bill Gates is a serial killer'. If someone said that, should we lock him up?

no.

So most people who currently minimise their tax would be opposed to paying a tax that was proportionate and covered let's say education and healthcare for those that can't afford it, or would be opposed to directly supporting people in their local community who are truly struggling despite genuine effort?

Yes. Those who are selfish and greedy are selfish and greedy.

[eFestivals]

By that logic, we should ban all gifts. I know you've made clear that you agree with that, but how do we do it?

By 'gifts' I'm not talking about a hundred quid for your kids birthday.

We already do it to an extent, via them being taxed.

A simple law that says that they're banned, and that all gifts should be made payable directly to the government? I can see that getting enforced about as well as the EU cookie law was.

and we're back to the strawman argument that would decriminalise murder.

Yes, but surely that's the only effective way to do it, other than solely taxing the section of the dead who die suddenly, of cancer, car crashes, etc?

what is "effective" is anything that can be effected - so anything is possible.

If gifting as an alternative form of inheritance is also outlawed as I've said, then it's not what you say and so your question is irrelevant.

With many people, who are talking purely about the system as it stands, with only relatively minor alterations, sure, I'll generally have relatively few questions I need to know the answer to to respond, however (as far as I can tell, tell me if I'm wrong), you've suggested an overhaul of the current system, a change into meritocracy and (I think? Lmk) a ban on gifting, which obviously requires more questions about exactly what you're talking in regards to.

No it doesn't. All the systems to do it already exist.

What doesn't exist is the aptitude to recognise that, clearly.

[eoJ]

No, they're not. Your questions are about avoiding the point.

For all the while we have taxes, those taxes will have to be raised in some manner.

One manner is to firstly tax inheritance (or gifts given prior to death as a form of inheritance) - unneeded money by the person who acquired it.

Another method is to instead harder tax the living on their own efforts.

It's very simple, to say which of these is preferable to you and why, but you've avoided doing so over seven pages so far.

The nature of a debate requires a lot of questioning of the other person's argument, else you end up with a mess of black or white fallacies. Can you put forward any questions I've asked to anyone (excluding you, as you seem to be the only main one cherrypicking), that have been answered, and where I haven't answered the original question if there aren't still important issues that need to be addressed to answer it? If I have, then I apologise, but I need to understand the other person's argument in order to respond to it.

If I'm asking a question, then by definition, that means that I see a logical flaw, either resulting from a flaw in the other person's argument, or a flaw in my understanding of it. Once that flaw is resolved, then, and only then, can I answer a question with the respect it deserves. Are you asking for a debate without questioning, or at least, only yes and no answers?

One manner is to firstly tax inheritance (or gifts given prior to death as a form of inheritance) - unneeded money by the person who acquired it.

Another method is to instead harder tax the living on their own efforts.

It's very simple, to say which of these is preferable to you and why, but you've avoided doing so over seven pages so far.

And I've previously asked whether you ban gifts altogether (as that's the only way for an inheritance tax to work, without it becoming a tax on sudden death), and if so, how, which you never answered.

This is a thread about the merits (or not) of inheritance tax compared to other taxes. Nothing of those questions are about that.

It's very simple to say which of these is preferable to you and why.

You're over-reducing my argument, and there are many direct responses to questions you've asked in there. A debate can't occur if the relevant points (even if not directly relevant, but just because something isn't directly caused by something else, doesn't mean it bears no relevance) aren't addressed.

It's very simple to say which of these is preferable to you and why.

Not without understanding the points behind them. You seem to be trying to turn this into a black and white argument, and effectively saying 'here are 2 doors to different rooms, one has a kitten in, one has a tiger. Each also has 1000 other things in. Which do you pick?'. Why would I not then ask what the 2000 other things are?

How do you think we might collect inheritance (and gifting) taxes? The same way as other taxes are collected.

Those are very pointless words. We already have inheritance and gifting taxes (tho at a low level) and they get collected.

There's a difference between collection and enforcement. How do you enforce a gifting tax?

EDIT: 2 posts above appeared while posting this. Just a minute, reading.

Edited July 9, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

It was the points about family finances not being as individual as you think they are... Specially when it comes to the caring and supporting of the elderly and the costs involved and so on...

I think it was lost on you to be honest. You just dismissed it by saying not everyone has that. Which was kind of avoiding the point.

Is it true that not everyone has that? Yes it is.

Which is the *central* point, the one you wish to avoid!!

We have family support systems currently, which are less perfect (because not everyone has them) than an alternative system where everyone does.

So do we stick with the imperfect system and make people suffer as a direct consequence, or do we replace it with a more-perfect system?