Inheritance Tax

[eFestivals]

Of course the realities of the world see the mega rich performing huge tax avoidance....

yep, but there'd be far fewer mega rich to be able to avoid tax if there was no inheritances.

In 1066, the UK was divvied-up amongst a relatively few Norman families. One thousand years later those families still own 75% of the UK.

And that's because of inheritance.

Not their hard work.

Not their intelligence.

Not anything else.

Because of inheritance.

[eFestivals]

Are you asking for a debate without questioning, or at least, only yes and no answers?

No, I'm asking for a debate on inheritance taxes compared to other taxes.

You know, a question that recognises the real-world existence of taxes that can be raised on almost any or no activity, and the real-world existence of an effective collection regime.

(the cheats remain as cheats no differently to how any law breaker is a law breaker. It's not a reason in itself to not have a law).

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.

Via taxing gifts as income (or CGT, or whatever you want to see it as) at an increasing tax rate the bigger the gift.

As we already do this to some degree, it's a surprise you needed telling.

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?

You already know what the other 2000 things are - taxes on earnings, rather than taxes on unneeded money (unneeded, because otherwise it couldn't be given away or hoarded until death).

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

No differently to now.

If you instead really mean "How do you perfectly enforce a gifting tax?, I refer you back to the murder laws.

Edited July 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I was right when I said you don't really get the point....

What is your point Barry?

That you're looked after in your own old age?

Or that your daughter is coerced to personally look after you in your old age?

If it's the first, I've got that, and what I say has got it covered better than your own imperfect method.

If it's the second, well, your wish to mentally/emotionally abuse of your daughter will probably get you cared for, but not by her.

[eFestivals]

I doubt many people are coerced into such a situation.... Its not really a situation you can be coerced into....

In which case all that matters is that you're cared for, which is covered.

So you've nothing to lose.

I think people look after family member because they want to.

No money of hers or yours is required for that, only her efforts.

None of this is relevant to what I said anyway. The tax would be on unneeded money, money that you (who needs caring for) don't need (because you'd be dead when it was taken), not money that you do need.

Edited July 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

We have before us the problems created from history and problems which are more in the scope of today.

If we are staying in the boundaries of what is realistic we can't do much about historic mistakes like that one. We can change the current game though to make improvements.

With inheritance taxes we can do both.

The reason those same families still own the country is because of inheritances, which ensures they keep the country.

It's wrong to tax anyone to a greater extent than they earn, which is the only other* method that could be used to remove inherited wealth from those families.

(* unless we revert to how they got that wealth in the first place - by violence).

Proper enforcement of primary earned income taxes would certainly start the ball rolling in changing the historic landscape.

No it wouldn't. All of the inherited wealth would remain exactly where it is now.

Unless those with inherited wealth were taxed by more than they earnt.

Its a much more progressive approach than dishing out blanket inheritance tax rates.

you clearly don't understand what progressive means in the context of tax.

You don't need a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

The only nut is you, too daft to understand the issues and much of this discussion.

Edited July 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

How on earth can anyone argue against a system that would see the end of the grotesque situation whereby less than 1% of the population owns 70% of the land?

(ignoring the Crown owns all position)

[eFestivals]

Like I said you missed the point at the start....

Not at all.

I'm saying that it's unneeded money that should be taxed at something close to 100% - so that's not money for caring.

So your answer is she should of been put in the state home and received the state care. The fact she had family who could of helped should of come at this huge cost to them for wanting to help.

Nothing of this would change.

I say the money has already been taxed when it was earn't

so was the money you spent on a car.

and the family should be left to deal with their own affairs there after.

and they would be.

They just wouldn't be left to acquire money they didn't earn.

The tax money helps pay for care for those who don't have family in a position to help.

and tax money collected at near-100% can pay for more than tax money collected at a lesser amount.

I think my way is better. Your way / he current way is a bit shit.

The way where some are left to suffer is better than the way where none are.

Right you are Barry. Feel very proud of that one.

[russycarps]

I think everyone here wouldn't mind see that situation changing... Its how you get there that is obviously the issue...

When you need someone to come along and post something really dumb its great we have you

Yes my tiny minded chum, and a massive increase in the rate of inheritance tax is the simplest way of doing it.

Unless you fancy spearheading a revolution? But given your water brain and jelly spine you're probably not the best man for the job.

[eFestivals]

You clearly don't.... Any single rate taxed could never be viewed as progressive...

I've not said it should be a "single rate tax" (nor the opposite), but don't let that stop you from making it up out of nothing.

That aside, you don't get more progressive than taxing money which its owner has no need of. It's a logical impossibility.

If we are going to tax.... Why should someone with just a house to pass on be taxed at the same rate as someone with an estate and a yacht ?

If they were both taxed at 100%, the result is 100% equal to them both.

Don't worry Barry, once you actually click to what I'm saying, the rich man is not getting a better deal than you are.

The rich man getting a better deal than you are is what you're saying should happen tho. If you were weren't as daft as a brush you'd have already realised.

Edited July 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Who suffers ?

I am promoting we have fully funded public services....

great, who is going to pay for them?

You, out of what you earn each day and need for your family?

Or the dead rolling in money that they don't need?

Granted in my system some have it betters than others. I don't want the commi utopia you want where everyone just has a really shit time

How will what I'm saying have any bad effect on you Barry? What of yours would my system take from you?

[eFestivals]

How on earth can anyone argue against a system that would see the end of the grotesque situation whereby less than 1% of the population owns 70% of the land?

(ignoring the Crown owns all position)

Just to clarify, it's actually less than 0.25% - and they own 75% of the land, and 67% of the wealth.

[eFestivals]

PS: the 1% thing is that 1% owning over 90% of the wealth and over 90% of the land.

[eFestivals]

Presuming you are proposing a 100% inheritance tax and in today's money I would lose around £30,000 inheritance. But my opinion on this isn't being driven by that....

No Barry. You'd be dead if anything of yours was taken by the taxman, so you'd be losing nothing.

But you do seem to have an expectation of being given money for doing fuck all, like those benefit 'scroungers' you hate.

[eoJ]

all questions from there addressed below....

yes.

In which case, as I stated, I don't see how a blind crippled baby's death is affected by whether or not they receive any inheritance, in the UK.

they can and they do and they succeed.

If they did succeed, we wouldn't be having this discussion (or at least, it'd be a lot shorter) - do you disagree with my previous assertation that under the current system, for anyone with a significant amount of tax to pay (or those who don't mind doing some reading), paying tax is a moral issue, rather than a legal one?

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

I assume the first then.

I've just wet myself.

I can't create a strawman if there's no man to begin with, or at least, only his shadow. I was merely asking questions here to find out the man's characteristics, as I obviously have no way of telling from his shadow.

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

That's true, however it relies on the fact that all those who don't pay tax are selfish and greedy, based on a single thing you know about them.

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.

You get put in charge of HMRC for a day. At what £ amount do gifts become taxable, over what period?

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

Can't respond to this without seeing your response to my response to your argument about that.

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.

effective: adjective. 1. successful in producing a desired or intended result. Is the intended result to tax inheritance from sudden death, or to tax inheritance from all death? Under the most common definition, inheritance tax is not effective under the latter option. RE gifting, need to see the response to the question 2 above (You get put in charge...).

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

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

You've mentioned meritocracy a lot, which even assuming you're doing purely through tax, surely requires huge sweeping changes to the tax system, i.e., large changes in rates and levels across the board? (Although yes, I understand it's still under the current system, however it's not a simple case of slightly changing the rules regarding one tax, which is what I was referring to.

I appreciate the responses, thanks. There are still the two murder posts, but once those are addressed, I'll be satisfied, and respond to the points I skipped, if I haven't already by that time (and any points you do feel I skipped, tell me, and providing it was skipping, and not just asking a relevant question that's important to give an answer, I'll be happy to address them)

Edited July 9, 2014 by eoJ

[eoJ]

Onto the more recent posts:

No, I'm asking for a debate on inheritance taxes compared to other taxes.

You know, a question that recognises the real-world existence of taxes that can be raised on almost any or no activity, and the real-world existence of an effective collection regime.

(the cheats remain as cheats no differently to how any law breaker is a law breaker. It's not a reason in itself to not have a law).

Ok, so I take it that you agree that in a debate, you can't always have yes or no answers, and that further relevant questions are often necessary to understand the argument, and not just a case of avoiding the question. If you do, no need to respond to that.

(the cheats remain as cheats no differently to how any law breaker is a law breaker. It's not a reason in itself to not have a law).

The law is there to punish those who break it. If a law isn't effective in doing so, then there's not a reason to have a law. A law against murder is effective, because while not all murderers will be caught and punished, there's still the aim to catch as many murderers as possible, and the majority (I assume? At the very least, a good amount) of murderers are caught. Those who wish to avoid tax, providing they're using a decent accountant (or at least, understand the law themselves, and we assume their understanding of the law is accurate) and therefore working within the confines of the law, will not be punished.

Via taxing gifts as income (or CGT, or whatever you want to see it as) at an increasing tax rate the bigger the gift.

As we already do this to some degree, it's a surprise you needed telling.

CGT is an easy one to avoid, or at the very least, heavily minimize. You can:

• Use entrepreneur's relief (capping to 10%).
• You can swap (for example a depreciating/low demand asset or failing business, for an appreciating asset or successful business).
• If planning on leaving the country in the future, you can give something where the gains won't be realised for several years.
• You can give an asset that it wouldn't make sense to sell, and that's expected to give high returns.
• Or you could simply put the money into a trust, where the receiver is a beneficiary, and they receive amounts from it, under the threshold, every year.
• Plus a million other methods.

You already know what the other 2000 things are - taxes on earnings, rather than taxes on unneeded money (unneeded, because otherwise it couldn't be given away or hoarded until death).

In that particular instance, yes. However, I'd need to then see which taxes would be affected, and what bands you'd make (these could be applicable across the board, if you wish).

No differently to now.

If you instead really mean "How do you perfectly enforce a gifting tax?, I refer you back to the murder laws.

Doesn't have to be perfect, nothing's perfect. Effectively is another matter.

Edited July 9, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

Ok, so I take it that you agree that in a debate, you can't always have yes or no answers, and that further relevant questions are often necessary to understand the argument, and not just a case of avoiding the question.

That's fine.

But when you're wanting the very existence of taxes to be justified, that's not. They DO exist, and they're not going away.

To keep things relevant, an assumption should be used that the amount being raised via taxes isn't changing, just via what taxes the money is raised by.

So the only options are around what can be taxed, and at what levels compared to other things.

The law is there to punish those who break it. If a law isn't effective in doing so, then there's not a reason to have a law.

The murder laws are not effective in stopping murder. Let's abolish the murder laws.

Back in the real world, your statement is bollocks. All laws are a statement of a society's moral values (or at least, in theory that's what they are).

A law against murder is effective, because while not all murderers will be caught and punished, there's still the aim to catch as many murderers as possible, and the majority (I assume? At the very least, a good amount) of murderers are caught. Those who wish to avoid tax, providing they're using a decent accountant (or at least, understand the law themselves, and we assume their understanding of the law is accurate) and therefore working within the confines of the law, will not be punished.

Laws are not about the punishments that might come from breaking them, but about the moral values people within society are meant to abide by. The purpose of laws is not to punish all law breakers, it's to try and stop law breaking in the first place.

As soon as any individual has a convo or takes a deliberate action for the purposes of lessening their tax bill, they break the moral values of society.

To put it another way: murder is illegal, killing in self-defence is not. If a person provokes another into attacking them as a way to then kill them in self-defence, they can rightfully claim self-defence via the facts that can be seen, but we all know via a vision into their private motivations that it was a deliberate act of murder.

CGT is an easy one to avoid, or at the very least, heavily minimize. You can:

... be a morally worthless member of society.

Only that.

In that particular instance, yes. However, I'd need to then see which taxes would be affected, and what bands you'd make (these could be applicable across the board, if you wish).

You'd only need to see them if you wished to work out for yourself the most advantageous tax situation for you personally.

It's a simple moral decision: should we firstly tax the work that living individuals are doing, or should we first tax unneeded money.

Doesn't have to be perfect, nothing's perfect. Effectively is another matter.

Via which you give yourself the perfect way to avoid having any moral stance in favour of your own bank balance.

Edited July 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

soz eoJ, i hadn't noticed that I'd missed these....

If they did succeed, we wouldn't be having this discussion (or at least, it'd be a lot shorter) - do you disagree with my previous assertation that under the current system, for anyone with a significant amount of tax to pay (or those who don't mind doing some reading), paying tax is a moral issue, rather than a legal one?

if you want to view it that way, you're welcome to.

As long as you properly follow thru and call all avoiders the immoral thieving c**ts that they are.

You get put in charge of HMRC for a day. At what £ amount do gifts become taxable, over what period?

off the top of my head - so it's not to be ripped apart as not perfection - for all inheritances and inheritance-like gifts, something like...

(edit: also see the post I'm about to make below)

- Under 18, up-to £1k in any year; max of £5k before 18.

- 18-21 and in full-time education: £2k a year (work like the poor have to thru uni you lazy fuckers ).

- lifetime: max of £50k (including those stated above).

Each also subject to income tax in the year of receipt. Anything over those amounts subject to 100% tax.

So, much as someone suggested above, a rich person could give it all away free of tax, but they'd have to distribute the money far and wide in doing so.

The point of taxing inheritance is not so much about the state being the one who gains, but the money is distributed around society and so used by society for society's benefit far better than happens via hording and little distribution.

The money that is distributed is then available to earned for work by anyone on merit (including from the beneficiaries), rather than all dropping into the lap of one person who doesn't share it around on the basis of the efforts of individuals in society.

As has been pointed out by economists of all political leanings, there's few things as bad for an economy than horded wealth.

effective: adjective. 1. successful in producing a desired or intended result. Is the intended result to tax inheritance from sudden death, or to tax inheritance from all death? Under the most common definition, inheritance tax is not effective under the latter option. RE gifting, need to see the response to the question 2 above (You get put in charge...).

If tax is successfully collected, it's effective.

You know, effective like the murder laws are, without being perfect.

You've mentioned meritocracy a lot, which even assuming you're doing purely through tax, surely requires huge sweeping changes to the tax system, i.e., large changes in rates and levels across the board? (Although yes, I understand it's still under the current system, however it's not a simple case of slightly changing the rules regarding one tax, which is what I was referring to.

What is "merit" and how far it stretches can be argued over, but doing fuck all and inheriting simply on the basis of (say) who you've been lucky enough to have as your father can never class as merit.

So lets start with that one, and then afterwards we can think about how to make other tax rules better fit that ideal.

Pretending that a perfect system has to be implemented everywhere at once is not real-world and is only obscuration.

Edited July 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

- Under 18, up-to £1k in any year; max of £5k before 18.

- 18-21 and in full-time education: £2k a year (work like the poor have to thru uni you lazy fuckers ).

- lifetime: max of £50k (including those stated above).

Actually, although I put those there as fixed specific amounts, i'm not a great fan of those, as they get used to present false versions of the world, particularly when the world changes but those fixed amounts do not (or the opposite).

So instead, I'd prefer them done as fractions (or multiples) of the median* average.

(* the median and not the mean, cos extreme wealth skews the mean so it means little).

So, for example, that £50k could be twice the median annual wage.

Which sounds more-than reasonable, cos why would - or more importantly, should - anyone get a free ride for more than 2 years of their life?

If I ruled the world, public-role jobs salaries would be calculated from the median wage too - that way, politicians only get a pay rise by creating the same effect for all others via the policies they implement. True public service, where all of the public benefit!

Edited July 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[eoJ]

That's fine.

But when you're wanting the very existence of taxes to be justified, that's not. They DO exist, and they're not going away.

To keep things relevant, an assumption should be used that the amount being raised via taxes isn't changing, just via what taxes the money is raised by.

So the only options are around what can be taxed, and at what levels compared to other things.

Fair enough, and if you ever feel like I'm straying off topic, or too deep, then just post something like that. The confines of the debate haven't been properly defined, so it's always hard to know whether you're straying off course in the other person's mind. I'll let you know if we reach a scenario where I feel those need to be expanded, but for the moment, I agree, and have no issues with those boundaries. Tell me if you catch me straying outside of them - I don't intend to, and will fully specify if I feel an expansion is needed.

That said, if we're using the assumption that the amount raised by taxes will remain the same, and the fact that taxes exist aren't changing, then we should also use the assumption that there will continue to be people who choose to avoid tax, for whatever reason, whether it's so that they can buy a new mansion, or help kids in Africa (or because they have a moral aversion to paying tax, whatever, it doesn't matter).

The murder laws are not effective in stopping murder. Let's abolish the murder laws.

Back when they drafted the law against murder, I don't think anyone said 'Great guys, we've done it! No one will murder anyone ever again!'. No, the aim of that law wasn't to stop murder outright, merely to clearly define it, to allow those who murder others to be pursued and punished for their actions if caught, and to clearly lay out how they should be punished.

I would say that's an effective law. If someone is found to have murdered someone, they are punished, within the confines of it, and the outcome matches what was originally expected when drafting that law. We may not catch all murderers, but that's a matter of effective policing, not the law itself (and as anyone avoiding tax properly isn't breaking any laws, comparing tax enforcement to murder policing isn't a fair comparison).

If everyone was born with a huge guilt sector in their brain, and all the murderers we had the ability to catch immediately turned themselves in at the local police station, and requested the appropriate sentence, then no, you wouldn't need a law against murder.

Back in the real world, your statement is bollocks. All laws are a statement of a society's moral values (or at least, in theory that's what they are).

Laws are not about the punishments that might come from breaking them, but about the moral values people within society are meant to abide by. The purpose of laws is not to punish all law breakers, it's to try and stop law breaking in the first place.

Am I right in saying that your issue is with my first sentence, i.e. 'The law is there to punish those who break it'? If so, then what else is it for? The reason for punishment is because the act goes against our moral values, and we consider it going against them to the extent of being worthy of punishment.

If we had laws for everything that we considered morally disagreeable, then we'd have the 'didn't give anything to charity this year' law, and the 'not helping that old lady across the road' law. We don't, because firstly, while we consider these acts morally disagreeable, we don't necessarily think them worthy of punishment, and secondly, creates unintended consequences, which I can see both of those 2 examples being vulnerable to (and that it creates conflicts where people's moral values differ, as no one has the same exact set of values).

As soon as any individual has a convo or takes a deliberate action for the purposes of lessening their tax bill, they break the moral values of society.

To put it another way: murder is illegal, killing in self-defence is not. If a person provokes another into attacking them as a way to then kill them in self-defence, they can rightfully claim self-defence via the facts that can be seen, but we all know via a vision into their private motivations that it was a deliberate act of murder.

Having a conversation breaks the moral values of society? That's bordering a bit on 'unpure thoughts' isn't it?

Near 100% of people would agree that murder, or stealing is wrong. Most, though, would also have circumstances where they wouldn't consider it wrong - self defence, stealing bread to feed your starving family, etc. The same couldn't be said for paying tax, or at least, paying tax with no effort whatsoever to reduce it. Sure, a good number of people would have a moral objection, but I'm not sure how you'd define society as a group that can form opinions, or whether it's even possible to say a group holds an opinion (particularly if there's a percentage of people in the group that don't hold it).

That said, I'm not sure of the specific point I should respond to here, so I'll stop there.

... be a morally worthless member of society.

Only that.

The point I was making was that it's easy to avoid tax, and to cover multiple bases to avoid an individual one being removed (for example, if I'd just said entrepreneur's relief, that'd be an easy point to respond to - scrap entrepreneur's relief). Point being, taxation remains a moral issue rather than a legal one. You can make all the laws you want, but it'll still be possible to avoid tax despite them.

You'd only need to see them if you wished to work out for yourself the most advantageous tax situation for you personally.

It's a simple moral decision: should we firstly tax the work that living individuals are doing, or should we first tax unneeded money.

We're working based on the assumption that you became head of HMRC tomorrow. It could happen, but I think that's unlikely. Thus, I think any attempts by me to work out a low tax situation for my benefit based on them would be fairly pointless. However, if I was to do that (not that rates and bands particularly matter in regards to tax avoidance, the loopholes are in the law, not the numbers), and your HMRC head for a day position had been announced, and was going ahead, if I was able to find loopholes that easily, how hard would it be for the likes of KPMG?

As to the second point, we've covered that base in previous posts.

Edited July 10, 2014 by eoJ

[eoJ]

Onto the newer post:

soz eoJ, i hadn't noticed that I'd missed these....

No worries, I wrote it in notepad after writing the post you responded to, then did a quick edit and chucked them in, with a new post below, to make the timeline make more sense. I saw you were already on the thread, guess I was a bit late!

if you want to view it that way, you're welcome to.

As long as you properly follow thru and call all avoiders the immoral thieving c**ts that they are.

The first sentence seems to imply you disagree?

I can't speak for a large group of people's morals as a whole without understanding their individual situations. They could be someone who's never used a public service, lives in a shack they built themselves, gives to charity, works part time for MSF, and has been spat on by every current public servant and politician, for all I know.

off the top of my head - so it's not to be ripped apart as not perfection - for all inheritances and inheritance-like gifts, something like...

(edit: also see the post I'm about to make below)

- Under 18, up-to £1k in any year; max of £5k before 18.
- 18-21 and in full-time education: £2k a year (work like the poor have to thru uni you lazy fuckers ).
- lifetime: max of £50k (including those stated above).

Each also subject to income tax in the year of receipt. Anything over those amounts subject to 100% tax.

So, much as someone suggested above, a rich person could give it all away free of tax, but they'd have to distribute the money far and wide in doing so.

What about non-tangible benefits in kind, to pluck an example off the top of my head, private education?

How about startup capital for a business with a high barrier to entry - would that not create monopolies (from the Before Neil [bN] companies), as the companies that already have money would be able to destroy those that didn't? I know you could say you have to give equity, but if someone puts £10m into your startup, even if you're a total idiot, you should still be able to make a living from that (no matter whether you give equity or not), turning it into another form of gift.

How about promotions, aren't they a form of gift? If someone you hire to sweep the floors turns out to be excellent at marketing, would it be banned to then put them on £50k a year as your head of marketing?

The point of taxing inheritance is not so much about the state being the one who gains, but the money is distributed around society and so used by society for society's benefit far better than happens via hording and little distribution.

The money that is distributed is then available to earned for work by anyone on merit (including from the beneficiaries), rather than all dropping into the lap of one person who doesn't share it around on the basis of the efforts of individuals in society.

As has been pointed out by economists of all political leanings, there's few things as bad for an economy than horded wealth.

Where the economists differ, though, is on the definition of hoarding wealth. Almost zero multi-millionaires will go and keep all their money in their current account for a long period of time. Instead, they'll invest it, and however you invest money, the end result is that you're giving it to someone else (hopefully then receiving some more money in return, down the line), who will then give it to someone else, and so on. Even if they do put it in their current account, the bank will borrow 90% of it from them (thanks to the fractional reserve system) and invest it themselves.

What Bill Gates keeps in his current account is probably a huge amount of money compared to what most of us have, but it will be a very small percentage of his net worth. If he, or Microsoft, wants to go and invest a lot of money into some new venture, then the money won't be taken from his current account, a percentage of his assets and investments will be sold to someone else to pay for it.

If tax is successfully collected, it's effective.

You know, effective like the murder laws are, without being perfect.

Tax isn't collected successfully though, and not as a result of the laws that enforce it.

I can't think of anything major I'd change about the murder laws, I'd say they're pretty close to perfection, a goal that's probably too high for the tax system for a fair while - after all, they've had a far longer time to develop.

What is "merit" and how far it stretches can be argued over, but doing fuck all and inheriting simply on the basis of (say) who you've been lucky enough to have as your father can never class as merit.

Yes, agreed.

Pretending that a perfect system has to be implemented everywhere at once is not real-world and is only obscuration.

As I've said, nothing's perfect. We should strive for perfection in everything, but retain the understanding we will never reach it. However, I'm not asking for that, my requests are far less lofty, merely for a system that's to a good standard of both effectiveness and fairness. I would argue that IHT is neither.

Actually, although I put those there as fixed specific amounts, i'm not a great fan of those, as they get used to present false versions of the world, particularly when the world changes but those fixed amounts do not (or the opposite).

So instead, I'd prefer them done as fractions (or multiples) of the median* average.

(* the median and not the mean, cos extreme wealth skews the mean so it means little).

So, for example, that £50k could be twice the median annual wage.

Which sounds more-than reasonable, cos why would - or more importantly, should - anyone get a free ride for more than 2 years of their life?

If I ruled the world, public-role jobs salaries would be calculated from the median wage too - that way, politicians only get a pay rise by creating the same effect for all others via the policies they implement. True public service, where all of the public benefit!

That sounds like a fair adjustment, and something I can't see any immediate issues with.

The last sentence sounds good! I can see a small problem, as there's no incentive for long term changes, and you have to tie it to something, perhaps just make it a bonus, else people won't want to become politicians if the average wage goes down, as more lucrative opportunities will emerge, as well as the fact that killing the poor suddenly becomes very profitable. However, getting off topic here

EDIT: I said 'small problem', and at that point, hadn't thought of the killing the poor issue, then forgot about it upon posting. I definitely do not support killing the poor.

Edited July 9, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

The confines of the debate haven't been properly defined

You said you wanted to discuss inheritance tax (IT). You called the thread "inheritance tax".

You defined the debate. The debate you defined wasn't about justifying the existence of any or all taxes, it was *specifically* about (just) inheritance tax.

(And as 'gifting' prior to death is a method used to avoid inheritance taxes, that's a relevant part of the debate you defined to.)

Your own context accepts the existence of taxes. Your own context puts the debate squarely where i'm trying to keep it.

That said, if we're using the assumption that the amount raised by taxes will remain the same, and the fact that taxes exist aren't changing, then we should also use the assumption that there will continue to be people who choose to avoid tax

not a problem - tho as there's no change with anything of this from what exists now, it ceases to be a relevant part of a debate about the merits of IT against other taxes, unless there's reason to think that they'd be greater avoidance of an IT law than other tax laws (which there isn't). It's *people* that avoid laws, not taxes that do.

Back when they drafted the law against murder, I don't think anyone said 'Great guys, we've done it! No one will murder anyone ever again!'.

and the same applies with tax laws.

How many times do we have to keep going back to your vacuous assertions that you use to avoid the issue under discussion?

Am I right in saying that your issue is with my first sentence, i.e. 'The law is there to punish those who break it'? If so, then what else is it for?

you have already had from me the factually correct answer to this question, where you try to assert the factually wrong answer.

If we had laws for everything that we considered morally disagreeable

And yet we do have laws for everything that law-makers consider morally disagreeable and important enough to require a law.

The tax laws would be far more perfect than they are if they were not written for the purposes of allowing the people who write the laws (and their cronies) to avoid them. The problem is the law makers, not the ability of laws to be effective in their aims.

Having a conversation breaks the moral values of society? That's bordering a bit on 'unpure thoughts' isn't it?

I see you've never encountered the conspiracy laws that the UK has.

Isn't it funny how tax laws don't have surrounding conspiracy laws, unlike just about every other area of law?

The point I was making was that it's easy to avoid tax

it's easy to murder too.

Spurious. Again.

how hard would it be for the likes of KPMG?

Impossible, if there were a surrounding conspiracy law as exists in all other areas of law.

As to the second point, we've covered that base in previous posts.

And yet you've never been able to give an answer to cover it. Strange.

It's a simple moral decision: should we firstly tax the work that living individuals are doing, or should we first tax unneeded money?

[eFestivals]

The first sentence seems to imply you disagree?

PMSL - not in the least.

I've merely recognised what you are, and am calling you out.

And my recognition is proven by your response; you've been successfully called out.

What about non-tangible benefits in kind, to pluck an example off the top of my head, private education?

I see you're back to spuriously expecting instant perfection of all laws again. :roilleyes:

We're talking about inheritance taxes (and 'gifting' as avoidance), and nothing else.

How about startup capital for a business with a high barrier to entry

dead people don't invest in these.

FFS.

How about promotions, aren't they a form of gift? If someone you hire to sweep the floors turns out to be excellent at marketing, would it be banned to then put them on £50k a year as your head of marketing?

We're talking about inheritance taxes (and 'gifting' as avoidance), and not any spurious others.

Where the economists differ, though, is on the definition of hoarding wealth. Almost zero multi-millionaires will go and keep all their money in their current account for a long period of time. Instead, they'll invest it, and however you invest money, the end result is that you're giving it to someone else

Irrelevances. Nothing of that is inheritance tax.

The faster the money goes around, the more dynamic the economy and the better valued the assets within that economy. There's no sane economist who disagrees.

Tax isn't collected successfully though

Your and my bank balance says differently.

my requests are far less lofty, merely for a system that's to a good standard of both effectiveness and fairness. I would argue that IHT is neither.

So please do put forwards an argument for why it's better to tax the living than it is the dead. I've been waiting for all of this thread to do so.

You say "I would argue..." - so fecking argue, stop posting utter worthless bollocks instead.

Yes, agreed.

Good.

So now you need to tell me why someone deserves something you agree they do not merit, as you've been saying they do.

(there's a little bit of a literal trick in there, which if your brain is working will tell you that you've just admitted that you lost the argument when you said "Yes, agreed". Oh dear. ).

The last sentence sounds good! I can see a small problem, as there's no incentive for long term changes,

actually, it's less the case than what exists now, cos there's no incentive for anything except paying yourself more and more for no reason whatsoever in what we have now.

and you have to tie it to something, perhaps just make it a bonus, else people won't want to become politicians if the average wage goes down, as more lucrative opportunities will emerge,

A situation that exists now, if we believe all of the politicians who say "if I wasn't so greedy as to pick up a second wage, I'd be even more greedy on one wage".

Edited July 10, 2014 by eFestivals

[eoJ]

You said you wanted to discuss inheritance tax (IT). You called the thread "inheritance tax".

You defined the debate. The debate you defined wasn't about justifying the existence of any or all taxes, it was *specifically* about (just) inheritance tax.

(And as 'gifting' prior to death is a method used to avoid inheritance taxes, that's a relevant part of the debate you defined to.)

Your own context accepts the existence of taxes. Your own context puts the debate squarely where i'm trying to keep it.

If it was that simple, laws on things where the definition is commonly understood wouldn't need to be hundreds of pages long. It's a debate, unless specified, taxes in general will be brought up, as will tax avoidance. You don't need to create an argument where there isn't one though, I said I agree.

As a result of this specification, I've claimed some of the discussions that seemed to stem from it, or from the second part RE tax avoidance (can't always remember the origins of everything over 9 pages) as moot. If they're not, say 'no it's not', and I'll do a ctrl+f for their origins.

not a problem - tho as there's no change with anything of this from what exists now, it ceases to be a relevant part of a debate about the merits of IT against other taxes, unless there's reason to think that they'd be greater avoidance of an IT law than other tax laws (which there isn't). It's *people* that avoid laws, not taxes that do.

Excellent.

and the same applies with tax laws.

The difference between that and tax laws though, is murder laws effectively punish murderers, tax laws don't effectively punish tax avoidance. However, as we've stated the current system isn't changing, the point is moot.

you have already had from me the factually correct answer to this question, where you try to assert the factually wrong answer.

Do you have any specific issue with anything I said there?

And yet we do have laws for everything that law-makers consider morally disagreeable and important enough to require a law.

The tax laws would be far more perfect than they are if they were not written for the purposes of allowing the people who write the laws (and their cronies) to avoid them. The problem is the law makers, not the ability of laws to be effective in their aims.

Everything they consider morally disagreeable and important enough? Everyone likely has something they'd like to add a law about, the law is based on morals where more than 50% of the people at the time happen to share that moral view, or at least consider it beneficial in some way. However, point is moot.

I see you've never encountered the conspiracy laws that the UK has.

Isn't it funny how tax laws don't have surrounding conspiracy laws, unlike just about every other area of law?

Conspiracy requires an agreement to go and do it, not just have a conversation about it. You can't arrest 2 people for discussing how they'd commit the perfect *insert crime*. You can only arrest them if they say 'ok, let's do it next week'. Point is moot though

it's easy to murder too.

Spurious. Again.

Should have clarified, what I should have said was 'it's easy to avoid tax while not be committing any crime'. The same cannot be said of murder. However, point is moot.

Impossible, if there were a surrounding conspiracy law as exists in all other areas of law.

Conspiracy requires criminal intent. Telling your accountant you want to evade tax/don't mind breaking the law will mean they have to report you, and can't work with you legally. One small addition to my previous debate specification, should've included 'easily possible to legally avoid tax'. Is it ok to add that to it? If so, point is moot.

Edited July 10, 2014 by eoJ

[eoJ]

Argh, so close to it being 2 nice neat posts, I'll throw in your last point's reply as a separate one, then do a third. At least with the debate being more specified, a lot of the previous trains of discussion can go.

And yet you've never been able to give an answer to cover it. Strange.

It's a simple moral decision: should we firstly tax the work that living individuals are doing, or should we first tax unneeded money?

I've said I agree in theory, but then asked how you do it.

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?

But there's no such thing as a tax on the dead. There's an attempt to do that, but it clearly doesn't work. As I've said, the tax is on dying suddenly, not dying.

And the main one:

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.

I can't give an answer any more definite than that without understanding how you'd do it.

[eoJ]

Now your second post. (Pre-post-edit: Grr, even this one is 1 quote past the limit. 4 posts it is.)

PMSL - not in the least.

I've merely recognised what you are, and am calling you out.

And my recognition is proven by your response; you've been successfully called out.

It's hard to detect tone online.

I'm confused here, if you agree, then how have I been called out?

I see you're back to spuriously expecting instant perfection of all laws again. :roilleyes:

We're talking about inheritance taxes (and 'gifting' as avoidance), and nothing else.

You're dismissing any complaint about your arguments as me requiring instant perfection, which I've never asked for, and even specifically stated against:

Doesn't have to be perfect, nothing's perfect. Effectively is another matter.

I can't think of anything major I'd change about the murder laws, I'd say they're pretty close to perfection, a goal that's probably too high for the tax system for a fair while - after all, they've had a far longer time to develop.

Yes, agreed.

As I've said, nothing's perfect. We should strive for perfection in everything, but retain the understanding we will never reach it. However, I'm not asking for that, my requests are far less lofty, merely for a system that's to a good standard of both effectiveness and fairness. I would argue that IHT is neither.

Law does have to be clearly defined though. Do you treat non-tangible benefits in kind, such as private education, the same way as gifts, or not? RE gifting as avoidance, gifting is within the realms of the debate, providing that you accept that if taxes on gifting raise, more circumstances occur where people will avoid tax on gifts, whatever form they may be in.

dead people don't invest in these.

FFS.

Do you disagree that on multiple occasions, you've stated that all gifts (above thresholds you specified yesterday) should be taxable, at a high rate (i.e. significantly higher than they are now)?

We're talking about inheritance taxes (and 'gifting' as avoidance), and not any spurious others.

What is gifting as avoidance? By definition, if tax is the only reason for doing something, it's not avoidance, it's evasion, and punishable under the law.

Irrelevances. Nothing of that is inheritance tax.

The faster the money goes around, the more dynamic the economy and the better valued the assets within that economy. There's no sane economist who disagrees.

But it's related to hoarding wealth, which you've claimed as a main reason for inheritance tax.

Are you implying that the government (plus the time it takes to go through the tax process on inheritance) is prone to spending money (including investing) faster than a person? If so, why?

Your and my bank balance says differently.

I'm sorry, you're right, that was worded badly. Tax is not enforced successfully (charities collect successfully). It's not collected as a result of the efficiency of the tax law though. However, that's drifting back outside the confines of the debate.

So please do put forwards an argument for why it's better to tax the living than it is the dead. I've been waiting for all of this thread to do so.

You say "I would argue..." - so fecking argue, stop posting utter worthless bollocks instead.

No point in me laying out an argument for something if you already agree, since that would be worthless bollocks. Since you don't, no problem, I'll lay one out.

Effectiveness: The main aim of inheritance tax, in my opinion (as always, if you disagree, say so) is to prevent people receiving large sums of money and a free ride for nothing. To take the trust example I mentioned earlier, chucking that large sum of money into a trust, investing in a rental property, and then paying out the yearly proceeds to someone would allow them to receive a large sum of money, and get a free ride for life, without any inheritance tax liability. Therefore, it's not effective.

Fairness: As above, anyone with time to plan, can and does do that. Very few people above the threshold who have time to plan, don't. (Else everyone would simply buy a £20 Will kit from WHSmiths, instead of seeing an accountant/lawyer) This means that only those who don't have time to plan (i.e. primarily those who die suddenly, or have their brain turn to cabbage sooner than expected), are affected. This is unfair, as it doesn't target deaths in general, it targets primarily those who die suddenly, making it effectively a cancer & car crashes tax.

Good.

So now you need to tell me why someone deserves something you agree they do not merit, as you've been saying they do.

(there's a little bit of a literal trick in there, which if your brain is working will tell you that you've just admitted that you lost the argument when you said "Yes, agreed". Oh dear. ).

I have quoted above a post where I freely stated I would agree, if you can explain how you do it. No tricks required, once you start listening to another person's argument, even if their views seem radically different, if you slowly pick apart each others points, you'll often find that your core views aren't so different, and there's perhaps just small differences.

Edited July 10, 2014 by eoJ