Inheritance Tax

[eFestivals]

RE your first point: Something like an idea combined with someone's work ethic and skills is incredibly hard to put a value on. Also, what a father, or someone close to them may consider reasonable, is not the same thing as someone who doesn't know the person, or a professional investor, may consider reasonable (just look at MLM schemes, and some franchises for an example of this - should we prosecute anyone who ever got involved in one that wasn't too good?).

If it's not on professional terms, it's not a professional investment.

Which gets to mean it's gifting.

Perhaps the dad is infirm, so has no chance of being able to work, or leave the house (therefore providing little value, besides the money, and not having access to other means of investment), and despite having that lump sum, he's being chased by the Yakuza (for whatever reason - gambling debts? Sorry, I know we're going a bit beyond reality here, but I'm sure you can see similar situations occurring, even if not exactly the same).

if Daddy is needing that sort of sure bet he's not going to be investing in a big risk, is he?

Other investments are available.

Other social support alternatives exist for his care.

If you borrow money from a bank, they've known you for all of 5 minutes, and give terms as such.

professional terms for a professional situation

A father has known you for all your life, and even if you go bankrupt, unlike a bank, he still has a good chance of being paid back in the future.

preferential terms for a preferential yet illegal situation.

Anything outside of the professional is a gift.

If Daddy can't act professionally with his kid over a professional matter, given that he knows the consequences, he should be professional enough to decline to be involved.

If he's not that professional? Jail.

RE the second: While that seems true at first, if the only reason he's able to afford his dad's share is as a result of the investment by his dad, then he hasn't necessarily earned it on merit.

he will have done more-so than if it was all gifted.

You're still after the perfection you don't get in any other part of your life. I guess you reject shitting in the morning, in case you're not so perfect as to leave half of one hanging.

If the business has done worse than expected, and earned nothing (again, extreme example, but this one's just for the sake of maths, and at least not as extreme as the last), and the dad has a 40% share, then his share will only be worth £240k, and affordable (perhaps with a repayment plan, or a % buyout each year, although the son will have £360k in his share of the business).

and there's no accountant in the world could spot anyone taking the piss, eh?

Any friggin' layman could do it.

Many partnerships have clauses where if the partner dies, the other partners have first right of refusal, and at that point, the business is either liquidated, the share sold, or the stake goes to the heirs - however without inheritance, the last part becomes a problem, as where does it go? Most people wouldn't want their new partner to be just any random stranger, and many would then instead prefer to liquidate, however you've then received a cash lump sum, no different from a gift. What's the other option?

Oh well how sad never mind.

have you ever considered how those partnership agreements came to be formed that way?

Might it to be to best exploit the law for the partners' benefit, whilst being within the law?

Care to tell me how the formation (or transformation, for existing ones) of a partnership becomes any different to that with a different set of laws around it?

Just because changing things causes things to change doesn't get to mean there should be no changes.

Laws around investments change all the time in real life right now. You're back to the spurious bollocks again wanting only 100% perfection to replace the crock of shit you approve of.

Edited July 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[eoJ]

Professional investments vs gifting: As I stated, the father has known the son all their life, and so it's reasonable to expect they know them better than anyone else in the world. As a result, if they believe the son to be a hard worker, it's fair for them to give a preferential rate over a bank who thinks they might be a hard worker, based on 5 minutes of conversation. Also, if you go to someone and say 'how much is this idea valued at, based on a short discussion with this person, and my abstract feelings about them', how do they give a solid value?

Also, if you're saying it's OK to punish someone for making a bad deal, how about those who invest in bad franchises/MLM schemes? Who buy their double glazing from a company like Everest?

'he will have done more-so than if it was all gifted.': Perhaps true, but still far less than someone who wasn't gifted anything, no? And how much he's done depends on the situation.

Spotting someone taking the piss: Only by opinion, not with the certainty required to send them to jail, at least in many circumstances.

How partnerships came to be formed that way: Do tell, and suggest the alternative, and how partners dying etc would be dealt with.

Perfection: I'm not seeking perfection. We've examined the current system, and we're examining your alternative, and the main flaws and weaknesses in both (at the moment, just yours, as we've covered, at least to extent, the flaws and weaknesses in the current system). Once we've finished examining the main flaws and weaknesses in your alternative, I'll then be in a position to decide whether it's better than the current system, if I feel it's not, I'll then be able to propose an alternative, that can have the main flaws and weaknesses pointed out. We can then compare that to the other 2, revisit all 3 one by one to point out any flaws missed originally, and then compare the 3 together to try and decide which is the most-perfect system (but still not perfect). It's best to do each individually until that point though, else things become cluttered and confusing.

Edited July 11, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

Professional investments vs gifting: As I stated, the father has known the son all their life, and so it's reasonable to expect they know them better than anyone else in the world. As a result, if they believe the son to be a hard worker, it's fair for them to give a preferential rate over a bank who thinks they might be a hard worker, based on 5 minutes of conversation. Also, if you go to someone and say 'how much is this idea valued at, based on a short discussion with this person, and my abstract feelings about them'? How do they give a solid value?

you're looking for exemptions, where family connections count for more than equality and fairness to all.

The purpose is to be fairer.

If it's a good idea and kiddie is good enough, it'll work anyway. And if not, nothing gets lost.

It's not like there's genius' anyway, there are only ideas whose time has come - so nothing gets lost (and actually, because joe public now has a better chance of success, the average chance of success is raised and everyone benefits).

Also, if you're saying it's OK to punish someone for making a bad deal, how about those who invest in bad franchises/MLM schemes? Who buy their double glazing from a company like Everest?

PMSL - there's nothing you won't warp to try and keep this going, is there?

If rich men want to make bad investments, invest away. Few will cry for them.

It's not "bad deals" that get punished, it "overly-good" deals that do. You know, where someone pretends to be making a fair investment but is really commiting fraud by gifting.

'he will have done more-so than if it was all gifted.': Perhaps true, but still far less than someone who wasn't gifted anything, no? And how much he's done depends on the situation.

there's no perhaps about it. Something earnt is more meritable than something that is not.

I see you're still not having your morning shit.

Spotting someone taking the piss: Only by opinion, not with the certainty required to send them to jail, at least in many circumstances.

yeah, because it's impossible to detect fraud.

How partnerships came to be formed that way: Do tell, and suggest the alternative.

I did just tell you.

And I'm quite happy for any partners to set their rules of their partnership - within whatever laws apply (exactly as now) of course.

Perfection: I'm not seeking perfection. We've examined the current system, and we're examining your alternative, and the flaws and weaknesses in both.

flaws and weakness measured against the objective of lessening the inequality thru gifting & inheritences.

Not measured against perfection. We don't have perfection in the current rules.

My solution only has to be more effective at making things meritable. Which it does.

I'll then be in a position to decide whether it's better than the current system,

seeing as you've already stated a more meritable situation is a better situation and not a jot of what you keep challenging with is knocking that more meritable situation, a smarter person then you would have already realised they're on a hiding to nothing.

But do feel free to carry on, to where you'll either have to restate your already-stated belief in equality thru merit, or you'll have to fess up to being a greedy c**t.

You are not addressing anything of the merit, which is your only legitmate form of attack - because taxes already happen.

[eoJ]

Purpose is fine. But how you achieve that purpose is very important. You don't seem to have raised any clear points in regard to how you value an idea, and your perception of their work ethic, which I assume to mean you agree you can't put a clear price on it that everyone (or most, depending on how perfect you want the system to be) will agree is fair?

How do you determine the intent of a deal without being there? Someone doesn't pay 5x more to a double glazing company because they want to help out a giant company.

The 'perhaps' was because you can't tell just from knowing that they've made a return that they've earned it more than someone who's worked hard with zero investment and earned less.

No, it's not impossible to detect fraud. It's impossible to always detect fraud. However, only a few edge cases would be possible to detect with the certainty required to send them to prison.

At this stage, we're not comparing it to the current system, or a third alternative, so it makes sense to compare it to perfection. If you were to say 'tough, those innocent people get sent to prison', or 'in x percentage of cases it would be impossible to detect intent, so no prison', fine. If that particular aspect is perfect, that's also fine. But unanswered problems aren't, unless one of those 2 has been accepted. When comparing them against one another, then we can say whether those flaws are a worthwhile tradeoff.

Edited July 11, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

Purpose is fine. But how you achieve that purpose is very important.

it only has to to nudge things by the tiniest bit to be classed a success.

To get it down to the sort of crudeness you're crying out for, given that at least one rich man would die suddenly in a car crash, it can't fail.

You don't seem to have raised any clear points in regard to how you value an idea, and your perception of their work ethic, which I assume to mean you agree you can't put a clear price on it that everyone (or most, depending on how perfect you want the system to be) will agree is fair?

we, as a society, make claims of being a meritocracy.

If we're truly that, my idea wins out. No one merits a free ride.

How do you determine the intent of a deal without being there? Someone doesn't pay 5x more to a double glazing company because they want to help out a giant company.

Few deals have to be examined. It's only inter-family wealth exchanges that would be subject to review (and few would be), a miniscule number of deals in the scheme of things.

No, it's not impossible to detect fraud. It's impossible to always detect fraud. However, only a few edge cases would be possible to detect with the certainty required to send them to prison.

Like with the laws we have now then, where the only real difference in my proposal is the taxing lines getting drawn in different places.

So nowt to lose, lots to gain thru a more-equal and more dynamic society.

When comparing them against one another, then we can say whether those flaws are a worthwhile tradeoff.

Spurious. See just above.

[eoJ]

I'll answer the last point first.

We're currently attempting to evaluate where the flaws exist in your proposed system and how to fix them, if you feel they should be fixed. All systems have flaws, but they need to be addressed, and decided if anything should change about them. If those flaws can't be fixed, then it needs to either be accepted that those flaws are a necessary evil for the greater good, or something that should be removed. If leaving this flaw in or taking it out will affect other aspects of the system, it should also be discussed whether that's a reason to remove those aspects, or whether they should be kept in (or changed in some way). Once we've chosen which flaws to accept under your proposed system, and which to scrap, then we can move onto the next step of the discussion.

'my idea wins out': do you agree about whether you can put a clear price on the 2 things I named or not?

Inter-family wealth exchanges: Need the question of seed investment answered before I can respond to that.

You also have yet to clearly explain how shares in a partnership would be handled upon one partner's death.

Edited July 11, 2014 by eoJ

[kaosmark2]

eoJ, what is your overall point? Summarised in 3 sentences or less please.

[eoJ]

eoJ, what is your overall point? Summarised in 3 sentences or less please.

That we're trying to decide whether Neil's system, the current system, or an alternative system, is the best one (and the reasons behind that), and in order to do so, we have to all understand all three, and the flaws & strong points of all of them.

1 sentence I already did it in 5 earlier this page, here:

I'm not seeking perfection. We've examined the current system, and we're examining your alternative, and the main flaws and weaknesses in both (at the moment, just yours, as we've covered, at least to extent, the flaws and weaknesses in the current system). Once we've finished examining the main flaws and weaknesses in your alternative, I'll then be in a position to decide whether it's better than the current system, if I feel it's not, I'll then be able to propose an alternative, that can have the main flaws and weaknesses pointed out. We can then compare that to the other 2, revisit all 3 one by one to point out any flaws missed originally, and then compare the 3 together to try and decide which is the most-perfect system (but still not perfect). It's best to do each individually until that point though, else things become cluttered and confusing.

Edited July 11, 2014 by eoJ

[kaosmark2]

That we're trying to decide whether Neil's system, the current system, or an alternative system, is the best one (and the reasons behind that), and in order to do so, we have to all understand all three, and the flaws & strong points of all of them.

1 sentence I already did it in 5 earlier this page, here:

And what do you believe in? Less inheritance tax? Why?

[eoJ]

And what do you believe in? Less inheritance tax? Why?

If we handle 2 different topics at once, we end up with a situation like we had a couple of pages ago, where no-one is allowed time to process the other person's side of the argument, and it takes 4 posts to reply to all the quotes. If you read back, you'll see my position, which I've previously outlined on multiple occasions. Once this side of the debate has been handled, we'll delve back into mine, and debate the merits of it.

Debating mine currently requires going into whether or not I think Neil's is a good idea in theory. Once that idea has been turned into a clear method, I'll have the ability to decide whether I agree with it. We can then summarise the flaws and strong-points of either side, understand each other's position, and then debate which one is best.

EDIT: One other thing: Neil, could you briefly, in a sentence or two, summarise what the main goal of your system is, so we can then use that as a measure of how effective it is at reaching that goal? (Although obviously, we can't answer that definitively until all 3 are defined, with their flaws and merits - nor does that goal have to be final and unchangeable)

Edited July 12, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

I'll answer the last point first.

We're currently attempting to evaluate where the flaws exist in your proposed system and how to fix them, if you feel they should be fixed. All systems have flaws, but they need to be addressed, and decided if anything should change about them. If those flaws can't be fixed, then it needs to either be accepted that those flaws are a necessary evil for the greater good, or something that should be removed.

Given that a meritocracy is better than what we have now (which you';ve agreed is the case), and my system is *undoubtedly* more meritocratic whilst being no-more flawed than what we have now, it's for the greater good.

You can keep avoiding this fact, but it will never stop it being a fact.

Inter-family wealth exchanges: Need the question of seed investment answered before I can respond to that.

If the idea is good it will get the investment, daddy or no daddy.

And Daddy can still invest anyway, he just can't commit fraud.

It's already all been answered.

You also have yet to clearly explain how shares in a partnership would be handled upon one partner's death.

By a set of rules agreed by the partners and which are within the law - *exactly* as is the case now.

Partners today are not allowed to form a partnership on rules that are outside today's laws. Partners in the future will not be allowed to form a partnership on rules that are outside of any different future laws.

If partnerships are not the most attractive legal option, they'll instead go for the more appealing legal option.

Just as today's rules get written so someone gets something of benefit from them, so will future rules - just not necessarily the same someone or the same benefit.

There is no intrinsic right to all laws remaining the same.

Edited July 13, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

If we handle 2 different topics at once

except it's the same topic.

You've already stated clearly that you believe in a more meritocratic society.

You've already agreed that money for no effort cannot class as money that is merited.

And so you cannot believe in lower inheritance taxes. That is the opposite of what you have clearly stated.

But you're going to believe in them anyway, aren't you? It's been clear all along.

Dave Cameron promised us the most transparent govt ever, and boy, are they transparent (just not in the way he meant)! You're about in the same place.

[eFestivals]

EDIT: One other thing: Neil, could you briefly, in a sentence or two, summarise what the main goal of your system is, so we can then use that as a measure of how effective it is at reaching that goal?

because we've not done this part already, have we?

The goal is a greater equality of society, by having a greater equality of opportunity.

Currently, inheritance taxes cause far greater opportunities to some families than they do 'the people' as a whole, because the best opportunities are kept within those families via the wealth those families hold for all eternity.

So any policy that succeeds in making things more equal (via the distribution of that wealth outside of that family) can be classed a success.

Measured against today's terms and with the crudity you seem to like so much, it can have all of the same flaws as today's system and it become more successful the very first time a richman dies without already having put plans in place to spirit his money away from the taxman in the event of his death.

Edited July 13, 2014 by eFestivals

[eoJ]

'greater good' point: We'll discuss that shortly, when all three systems have been laid out. I can't evaluate whether I fully support yours without seeing all its flaws and merits. I'm not avoiding, I realise that sometimes in a debate, it may come across as the other side doing that (I've felt the same way at times about you) however I'm not trying to avoid, merely trying to understand the flaws and benefits, as they're not clearly laid out in my mind yet. Once I understand them, I'll be able to make a comparison.

Seed investment: My point was, how do you define a good idea, and the value of it? When Facebook was starting, Eduardo Saverin (we'll leave his later tax affairs out of this ) invested just over $30k into it (and while he had money, he didn't have the available capital a father nearing death would - we'll assume he invested a majority of his money). Why didn't Mark go to a venture capital firm? In its early stages, how much equity would a VC want for an unknown founder, who's created a site that's basically Myspace, but limited to college students, if they'd invest anything at all? Or do you accept that the vast, vast majority of ideas invested in by parents couldn't be valued, and only a few outsider situations of clear and obvious fraud would be able to be prosecuted?

Partners: Just give an example contract. For example, partner A has x shares and dies. If partner B can't afford to buy his shares (whether repayment plans would be allowed I see as a key issue), then the business is liquidated. Selling the shares on to the highest bidder creates problems, as partner A may be bringing unique skills to the table (if your partner's Mark Zuckerberg, good luck finding an equivalent partner) - also, if that partner only has a minority share, but as part of his role has intimate knowledge of the business, a competitor would be able to buy only a minority yet buy out and devalue the business and its secrets, without partner B receiving anything. Simply saying that they'll pick the most attractive option is an intellectual cop-out, in your words, without knowing what the most attractive option is.

2 different topics: I agree that a more meritocratic society would be better. I also agree 'free cancer treatment for all' would be better. However, without seeing how that goal is to be reached, I can't say whether we should work towards that goal or not.

While I would probably pick conservatives generally (or lib-dem, maybe), in the last election, I supported Gordon Brown. However, it's the best of a bad bunch, if I could pick any party, it would be the Libertarian party. However, getting off topic here.

Goal: apologies, I'm sure it's hard for both of us to remember every single point made over the past 13 pages. The second sentence is fine, thanks Points after that we can discuss once all three are laid out.

Edited July 13, 2014 by eoJ

[feral chile]

This quote's doing the rounds:

Even if everyone worked hard and went to college someone would still need to make our pizzas, stock our shelves, drive our cabs.

Quit looking down on them and assuming they deserve to live in poverty.

[eoJ]

This quote's doing the rounds:

Even if everyone worked hard and went to college someone would still need to make our pizzas, stock our shelves, drive our cabs.

Quit looking down on them and assuming they deserve to live in poverty.

Not sure where I've said poor people deserve to live in poverty. This is a debate about inheritance tax, not the global financial system.

As Neil previously defined, and I agreed to:

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.

In a bit, either after Neil's covered his system (probably the best time, although welcome to input on that, either way, they'd be added to once I've covered mine) or I've covered mine, I'll try and sum up the key points and confines of the debate (for the benefit of those who don't want to read the entire thread), which Neil can either accept are accurate, or modify/add to, for me to verify are accurate.

Edited July 13, 2014 by eoJ

[feral chile]

The point is, that we're meant to be living in a fair and just society, and yet there are people complaining that they have to pay tax on wealth of over 325K they've inherited.

They get to keep 325K and 60% of everything over and above that. while there are people struggling to live on minimum wage. This would give them an income of just over 12K, and this is considered too high for Working Tax Credits. Other benefits would be fairly minimal - they might get Housing Benefit and help with healthcare costs, Some are living on less than that - if they work between 16 and 30 hours they're pretty screwed as far as benefits are concerned.

I have far more sympathy for someone deciding they might as well live in benefits poverty rather than work full time and still live in poverty, and understand why they might feel society is unfair.

If the wealthy weren't so greedy and self interested, these people might have a better quality of life. (And I bet they'd be more than happy to inherit 325K and have all the rest confiscated, for that matter, because it would mean so much more to them).

Both you and Neil seem to accept that meritocracy is a good thing - it looks to me as if the state rewards not so much talent (uniqueness - the positive side of individualism) or vital contributions to society (even if it is as mundane as in the quote). Rather, the state seems to reward opportunism and self interest, (You know, individualism at its worst).

[eoJ]

FC: The problem with all that, is that you need to present an adequate way of solving the problem. There are many things that many would agree, it would be better if didn't happen, but as Neil has said, all systems have flaws. We live in a capitalistic system, and the nature of capitalism is that some will have more than others, and that won't always correspond linearly with their merit. If you have a method of solving that, within the current system (if outside of the current systems, it's outside the realms of this debate, although obviously you could always start a separate thread in that scenario) then of course, feel free to suggest it, I'll critique its flaws, and we can include it when evaluating the systems together. However, it's a difficult problem to solve. We're all advantaged to some degree, it's all relative.

As to the last sentence, I have issues with that, regarding whether it's the state that rewards, or society that rewards, but that's a topic for when we're evaluating the systems against each other.

Edited July 14, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

if I could pick any party, it would be the Libertarian party.

Thank you, you've finally managed 'honest'.

Tho I'd worked out where you were coming from (despite your obscurantist bullshit), and you're FAR more transparent than you want to believe of yourself.

There's no point continuing. You're not open to anything except that which confirms yourself as somehow superior to the rest of society (cos libertarians are never brave enough to be libertarians when they don't hold the upper hand).

Edited July 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

FC: The problem with all that, is that you need to present an adequate way of solving the problem. There are many things that many would agree, it would be better if didn't happen, but as Neil has said, all systems have flaws. We live in a capitalistic system, and the nature of capitalism is that some will have more than others, and that won't always correspond linearly with their merit. If you have a method of solving that, within the current system (if outside of the current systems, it's outside the realms of this debate, although obviously you could always start a separate thread in that scenario) then of course, feel free to suggest it, I'll critique its flaws, and we can include it when evaluating the systems together. However, it's a difficult problem to solve. We're all advantaged to some degree, it's all relative.

As to the last sentence, I have issues with that, regarding whether it's the state that rewards, or society that rewards, but that's a topic for when we're evaluating the systems against each other.

thee is a system that tries to address inequality - taxation. But the problem with taxation is that it's unpopular, people think the state is taking from them, and not understanding that they're already receiving an unequal share of the national wealth to start with.

The other problem is that people think in proportional terms and not absolutes. Research has shown that people will queue for much longer to save £100 from an item that originally cost £180, that to save £100 from an item that originally cost £10000. Yet they still save exactly the same amount either way.

The same applies to taxation. people are complaining about not receiving their full inheritance, because they feel entitled to all of it, and because they think in terms of proportion. They're not thinking, I'll be 325K plus better off, and society will lose 325K plus.

If you think in absolutes, 325K is worth 7 years work on the current minimum wage. We need people to do the jobs they do for society, and why should they not be entitled to at least a comfortable life in return for what can be adverse working conditions and job insecurity to start with?

there are 2 ways to do this - guarantee a decent minimum wage, which society won't consider, because businesses can't sustain it. or do it through the benefits system, which amounts to a government subsidy for businesses, in effect, because it allows businesses to employ people for less than a minimum wage, which the state tops up according to personal circumstances.

This needs paying for. and I really don't understand why people much more privileged object to sharing, and helping to provide an adequate standard of living for those less privileged, as they need these jobs to be done as much as anyone else. And also, of course, for the disadvantaged among us. We're meant to be a caring, egalitarian society, and instead of people thanking their lucky stars that they don't have to juggle their heating and their food bills, they don't seem to care enough to help those who do.

[eoJ]

Thank you, you've finally managed 'honest'.

Tho I'd worked out where you were coming from (despite your obscurantist bullshit), and you're FAR more transparent than you want to believe of yourself.

There's no point continuing. You're not open to anything except that which confirms yourself as somehow superior to the rest of society (cos libertarians are never brave enough to be libertarians when they don't hold the upper hand).

I had already made it very clear what system would be my ideal, if the current system could be modified (and it wouldn't be Libertarianism, however, mentioning it led to defining the debate and limiting it to the current system). Libertarianism requires too radical changes to be included in the realms of this debate, and it was in no way the direction I was going to go if unsatisfied with your solution.

I recommend you take a look in the mirror. You can call me obscurantist, selfish, greedy, a c**t, avoiding questions, whatever, but the fact remains that these are all devices to avoid having a sensible discussion, and to avoid questions asked of you, which you've done time and time again. I've made it clear that I'm open to any ideas put forward if they can be clearly laid out (or as you refer to clarity, 'crudity') and then demonstrated that they're better than the current system. The only reason I'm participating in this debate is to open my mind to other views, while your main aim appears to be to have an argument. I asked what your aim was, but you didn't respond. Despite what you may believe, you cannot tell everything about someone from a few posts on a particular issue.

Anyway, that's fine, if you want to storm off, storm off. There are plenty of others who can have a sensible debate without namecalling and avoiding. If you want to return, and answer the questions laid out in the posts above, that's fine too.

thee is a system that tries to address inequality - taxation. But the problem with taxation is that it's unpopular, people think the state is taking from them, and not understanding that they're already receiving an unequal share of the national wealth to start with.

The other problem is that people think in proportional terms and not absolutes. Research has shown that people will queue for much longer to save £100 from an item that originally cost £180, that to save £100 from an item that originally cost £10000. Yet they still save exactly the same amount either way.

The same applies to taxation. people are complaining about not receiving their full inheritance, because they feel entitled to all of it, and because they think in terms of proportion. They're not thinking, I'll be 325K plus better off, and society will lose 325K plus.

If you think in absolutes, 325K is worth 7 years work on the current minimum wage. We need people to do the jobs they do for society, and why should they not be entitled to at least a comfortable life in return for what can be adverse working conditions and job insecurity to start with?

there are 2 ways to do this - guarantee a decent minimum wage, which society won't consider, because businesses can't sustain it. or do it through the benefits system, which amounts to a government subsidy for businesses, in effect, because it allows businesses to employ people for less than a minimum wage, which the state tops up according to personal circumstances.

This needs paying for. and I really don't understand why people much more privileged object to sharing, and helping to provide an adequate standard of living for those less privileged, as they need these jobs to be done as much as anyone else. And also, of course, for the disadvantaged among us. We're meant to be a caring, egalitarian society, and instead of people thanking their lucky stars that they don't have to juggle their heating and their food bills, they don't seem to care enough to help those who do.

Well, taxation is the system that we recognised. However, what would your ideal tax rates be, in regards to inheritance tax (you can include any other relevant taxes, for example Neil's system also looked at gifting, but a total restructure isn't required.)? The reason I ask, instead of simply comparing to this system, is that you can't put up a decent argument in favour of something you don't totally support, else I could simply ask: "Why have the band set at £325k, instead of £0/500, and why not set the IHT rate at 100%"? However, this would obviously raise other concerns, such as gifting prior to death, investing in a business that's later liquidated (therefore giving the person money without having worked for it), etc.

The rest, I can discuss once we've discussed your ideal tax situation (can be as simple or as complex as you like, as long as it's within the current system and the main points are clearly defined).

Edited July 14, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

I recommend you take a look in the mirror. You can call me obscurantist, selfish, greedy, a c**t, avoiding questions, whatever, but

.... i've always made 100% clear where i'm coming from?

and to avoid questions asked of you, which you've done time and time again.

Nope, I've merely concentrated on the relevant parts - otherwise I'm required to define the whole world - where I've been able to demonstrate that what i've suggested is an improvement on what we have now towards those aims of mine.

I've made it clear that I'm open to any ideas put forward if they can be clearly laid out (or as you refer to clarity, 'crudity') and then demonstrated that they're better than the current system.

Which i've done. If the only change of my system to what exists currently was (say) 100% tax on everything over £100k at death, then the moment the first rich man dies unexpectedly it's an improvement over the current system.

It's lessened the amount of privileges passed thru familuiesa, and therefore it's an improvement.

But that only works of course if you see family privileges as a bad thing for society.

I asked what your aim was, but you didn't respond.

I have, at least three times.

Anyway, that's fine, if you want to storm off, storm off.

PMSL. It's not that at all.

I've simply recognised the futility of continuing. You might wish to say you're open to ideas, but you're not. Libertarians want it at least no less all their own way as anyone else.

I'm not pretending that I'm open to your views BTW. I'm only open to the idea that people should merit what they get (tho I don't mean that in a neoliberal tory way, just to make that clear).

There are plenty of others who can have a sensible debate without namecalling and avoiding.

PMSL - I just say it as I see it. If I say "greedy c**t", that's actually how I'm viewing you from the opinions you're giving (tho not in as harsh or aggressive a manner as the words might suggest; it's 'expression' more than it is 'literal').

No doubt someone reading my words (even you, perhaps) is thinking something along the lines of "normal scummy socialist, wants other people's money" (or whatever). I'm big enough to accept that opinions are always formed and they might not be complimentary. That's how it goes.

[eFestivals]

The rest, I can discuss once we've discussed your ideal tax situation (can be as simple or as complex as you like, as long as it's within the current system and the main points are clearly defined).

I know this wasn't aimed at me, but ... WTF?

eoJ is asking someone to write a new complete tax regime for the UK, covering every possible aspect of every possible scenario. Oh, and every aspect has got be better than every aspect of the current regime's 11,550+ pages.

But don't worry, eoJ isn't throwing up every possible thing he can think of to avoid discussing the actual thing of inheritance taxes.

[russycarps]

I am amazed you are continuing the discussion. His obsession with absolute detail is absurd, not to mention infuriating.

[eoJ]

1. .... i've always made 100% clear where i'm coming from?

2. Nope, I've merely concentrated on the relevant parts - otherwise I'm required to define the whole world - where I've been able to demonstrate that what i've suggested is an improvement on what we have now towards those aims of mine.

3. Which i've done. If the only change of my system to what exists currently was (say) 100% tax on everything over £100k at death, then the moment the first rich man dies unexpectedly it's an improvement over the current system.

It's lessened the amount of privileges passed thru familuiesa, and therefore it's an improvement.

But that only works of course if you see family privileges as a bad thing for society.

4. I have, at least three times.

5. PMSL. It's not that at all.

I've simply recognised the futility of continuing. You might wish to say you're open to ideas, but you're not. Libertarians want it at least no less all their own way as anyone else.

I'm not pretending that I'm open to your views BTW. I'm only open to the idea that people should merit what they get (tho I don't mean that in a neoliberal tory way, just to make that clear).

6. PMSL - I just say it as I see it. If I say "greedy c**t", that's actually how I'm viewing you from the opinions you're giving (tho not in as harsh or aggressive a manner as the words might suggest; it's 'expression' more than it is 'literal').

No doubt someone reading my words (even you, perhaps) is thinking something along the lines of "normal scummy socialist, wants other people's money" (or whatever). I'm big enough to accept that opinions are always formed and they might not be complimentary. That's how it goes.

I'll number the points, to avoid a million quotes.

1. But it's not particularly relevant to the discussion.

2. You're not required to define every minor detail, the points I've asked I see clear and major problems with, that bear direct relevance to the topic. Is there anything specific I've asked that you see as a minor detail?

3. Family privileges are a bad thing, and a flaw in the current system. I've agreed that. Under that logic though, should we hold a lottery each week where one random wealthy person has all their assets seized? Or handle inheritance tax that way?

4. Not the aim of the system, the aim of participating in this discussion. I've only asked that once. If you feel you've already answered it (as with any point or question I make) then feel free to respond with a quote.

5. People should merit what they get. Agreed. However, that's what I've been asking, how do you do that? (Answering that relies on answering the key questions above) There are plenty of things I agree with in theory, that doesn't mean I think we should start blindly changing things without considering both them and the consequences of changing them. However, the fact that you've stated you're not open-minded makes me ask again - what's your reason for participating in the discussion? My aim is to either change my own views, or change someone else's, hopefully both. But not to have an argument. If it was, I've had plenty of opportunities to call names and bicker.

6. Of course, I have no problem with you forming opinions about me. You're obviously welcome to do so. But bringing them into the discussion purely leads to bickering, and as I said a page or two ago, it's not relevant, and if you want to start a debate about those opinions, then another thread is the best place. But this is a thread about inheritance tax, not about me. If we'd skipped any bickering in this thread, we'd be much closer to reaching a conclusion.

7 (second post, only one point, so I won't quote it). No new tax regime required. As you've said, we're working within the bounds of the current system, for the sake of simplicity, so the laws are already written. The minor points, I'm more than happy to leave. There are some key points that are important, and I don't feel I've brought up any that can be written off as minor in the past couple of pages. However, tax is not a simple issue, it's to be expected that a discussion about changing it will lead to some complexities that will require thinking about.

Edited July 14, 2014 by eoJ