Inheritance Tax

[kaosmark2]

I had already made it very clear what system would be my ideal

Nope.

[eoJ]

Kaosmark2: Yes I have. It's not within the current system (as I mentioned, that was what resulted in the topic being defined) but I linked to it here, and it was discussed. http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/187376-inheritance-tax/page-5#entry4439185

I asked for any and all points to be critiqued, and any flaws found (both in that post and the original) so that it could then be compared against the current system, once that was done. There were one or two flaws, but almost all were already addressed within the system.

One alternative option within the current system is to scrap inheritance tax altogether, and simply raise other taxes by the 0.8% IHT accounts for. However, that required comparison to a system which wasn't defined (as was demonstrated by that happening) which is why we're here.

Edited July 14, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

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

It's everythi8ng of the discussion from where i'm sat - it's why I have an opinion on inheritance taxes.

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?

You're inventing them as problems when they are only changes.

Nothing of them needs to be defined from my end. It's not the govt's job to to set the framework for partnerships unless it's specifically legislating to do so; the fact that a changed law elsewhere might force change of something else is a consequence of any law, and nothing that cannot be over-come (unless outlawing that very thing).

You say you're a libertarian: well, towards partnership rules after a change in inheritance taxes, so am I. They can sort it out themselves, they're clever enough people (or like to believe they are, anyway).

If partnerships can't do it for them, then they can do the Ltd Co. thing. Whichever they choose, the ability of anyone to inherit from them would be severely limited - as it would be for everyone.

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?

You say we do similar to that at at the moment, which you find acceptable.

4. Not the aim of the system, the aim of participating in this discussion.

To demonstrate a better system than we currently have (where 'better' is measured against whether it is more equitable and meritable than the current system).

5. People should merit what they get. Agreed. However, that's what I've been asking, how do you do that?

By removing privileges given for no merit.

You certainly don't succeed at doing anything by only concentrating on the reasons to not do it - especially when you've not once shown any reason that measures as 'better' in what you're arguing.

[eoJ]

1. I, personally, am not the reason for your opinion on inheritance taxes. If you want to say 'people are greedy', or 'rich people are greedy', etc, that's fine. Making your opinions about me part of the discussion isn't.

2. They are problems, that exist as a result of changes. If you want to make a case for the current system, vs the idea of scrapping IHT & raising other taxes by 0.8%, that's fine, as long as you don't fall back on comparing it to a system that you don't have defined clearly. I'd prefer to include your system, as it makes it easier, and gives me more of an opportunity to see things a different way, but if you want to solely make a case for the current system, with no changes, that's fine too. RE changing laws having consequences, you then have to look at whether the end justifies the means, and whether it's worth enacting that law for the consequences that will result from doing so. I've raised my points in regard to the problem of partnerships and inheriting upon liquidation, but I've also said if you want to accept that as a flaw, that's fine, and if you want to correct that flaw, that's fine too, as long as you clearly state that you do.

3. Yes, acceptable by the definition of the word, in that I accept it that it happens. I accept that there are flaws in the current system, and to remove those flaws can mean affecting a lot of other things. I consider those flaws acceptable as a tradeoff to having a functioning society, however if a means is proposed of correcting those flaws, I'm open to it.

4. But you're not open to having your views change? That's a key point, as without that point, this discussion will continue ad infinitum. You can be fairly certain of those views, and believe that they are right, and accurate, but for them to be totally fixed, is a difficult one to have a discussion around. I'm fairly certain of the fact that the sky is blue, or that gravity exists, but if someone were to make a good enough argument against them, that defeated the proof of them I have defined in my head (to the extent of the other side's case being more likely, in my view), then I'd change my opinion if it held up to criticism while the concept of gravity, or whatever, didn't hold up to the same criticism. Certainty is something that rarely exists.

5. I'm not being hypocritical here, as I asked the same thing of my own system. You need to examine the flaws, not just the merits, before you can compare 2 systems.

Edited July 14, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

1. I don't wish to say either thing. I wish you to recognise what you've said you agree with and then go with that agreement. Anything else is a sham, and i'll feel free to point that out thanks.

2. The ends justify the means in the system we have now. Therefore it's a logical impossibly for my system to be anything but better if it makes just the tiniest step towards it's objective of greater equality. If you cannot see that, the issue is your ability to understand and not your ability to understand me.

3. and so am I. Doing nothing to address the flaws is the reverse of that, and objecting to a scheme which does address the flaws (such as my suggestion) is the reverse of that.

4. I'm open to improved ideas towards my objective, but you're not offering any.

I'm not open to allowing inherited privileges to continue. Any removal of those privileges is better than no removal of those privileges.

5. What i've suggested is certainly no more flawed than the current syste3m. If flaws of that scale are allowed in one system, they're allowed in a revised system.

Of course it would be better with fewer flaws, but short of a one-world tax regime perfect is impossible.

Edited July 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[eoJ]

1. If you want to disagree with my arguments, that's fine. Do you not agree though, that bringing your personal opinions on me into the discussion, doesn't contribute to it? If you feel it does, how does it?

2. Do you want to make a case for the current system (without falling back to a system you haven't defined) or want to make a case for your own system? If the latter, then we'll need to have it clearly defined, and examine its key flaws (as well as its benefits, although those should be fairly visible).

3. 'We should work to rectify flaws, but before moving to rectify those flaws, we should examine the consequences of doing so, and then examine whether it's an appropriate tradeoff.' Do you agree with that statement?

4. The fact that they will continue is certain, unless a system is proposed to rectify that. As to whether a little step, no matter the consequences, is an adequate tradeoff, I would disagree. To take another hypothetical, people in Africa are suffering from AIDS, and they will die from it. We can cure one child's AIDS, if we kill x pensioners. Should we? In that instance, the end doesn't necessarily justify the means.

5. Whether it's more flawed than the current system is impossible to say without examining the key flaws.

Edited July 14, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

1. If you want to disagree with my arguments, that's fine. Do you not agree though, that bringing your personal opinions on me into the discussion, doesn't contribute to it? If you feel it does, how does it?

Because you didn't understand it when I continually posted the word "spurious".

The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.

2. Do you want to make a case for the current system (without falling back to a system you haven't defined) or want to clearly define and outline your own system? If the latter, then we'll need to examine its flaws.

I wish to suggest an improved system, that better reaches the aims I want for it.

Given that nothing exists in isolation, that's all I need to do to demonstrate a better system.

Given that I won't be writing a bill for parliament to vote on, that's more than adequate for me considering the real-world position right now. A demonstration that a better system is possible than what we have was my sole intention.

And do note that you've not succeeded in undermining that even to the slightest extent, despite your many posts.

3. 'We should work to rectify flaws, but before moving to rectify those flaws, we should examine the consequences of doing so, and then examine whether it's an appropriate tradeoff.' Do you agree with that statement?

Yep. But given that it's logically impossible to be more-flawed when it does succeed in reducing privilege thru inheritance all you;'re doing is wasting your finger-tips.

Because all of the "flaws" you can point out are flaws today, with greater slant towards undeserved privilege than my system would deliver.

4. The fact that they will continue is certain, unless a system is proposed to rectify that. As to whether a little step, no matter the consequences, is an adequate tradeoff, I would disagree. To take another hypothetical, people in Africa are suffering from AIDS, and they will die from it. We can cure one child's AIDS, if we kill x pensioners. Should we? In that instance, the end doesn't necessarily justify the means.

No pensioners are killed.

Now justify why killing equality of opportunity is a good idea?

5. Whether it's more flawed than the current system is impossible to say without examining the key flaws.

Only to someone who doesn't accept "more meritable" as something that is better.

[eoJ]

1. Then that would be a case of not explaining how it's spurious. If I say something, and you think it's spurious, then don't just say that, tell me why you think it's spurious. I'll either accept that you're right, or disagree, and explain why I think you're wrong (which is how a debate needs to function in order to work).

2. I have no doubt that a better system is possible. I fully agree with that. However, if, for example, everyone with a scientific theory just went and offered a sentence or two, and then it was regarded as correct and accurate, then science wouldn't advance. Instead, a paper gets written, attempts are made to debunk it, and it's then decided whether it's more or less likely to be accurate than the current prevailing view.

3. We can look at that once the key flaws have been examined and laid out. To say that any flaw that exists within a system must be a flaw within the current one, without knowing what they are, is illogical.

4. To put it more simply, does the end always justify the means? There are plenty of examples, that don't involve pensioners being killed, where most would agree it doesn't. As I asked on the last page, if it will help some people, should we have a lottery each month where a random wealthy person has their assets drained to fund that? No pensioners killed, and a worthy cause receives funding. I realise that's not meritocracy, but I'm not making the case for that lottery system, and I assume you wouldn't either. We're now looking at whether the end always justifies the means, which you've made a key point of your argument.

5. Eh? You said it yourself:

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

It's how we get there that's the problem.

Edited July 14, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

It's how we get there that's the problem.

by removing the unmerited privileges of inheritance.

Removing privilege from just one is better than removing it from no one at all.

And this is why the solution is so simple: tax inheritances (and gifting) far more harshly than is the case now.

We seem to be going round in circles.

[eoJ]

Removing privilege from just one is better than removing it from no one at all.

There are many, many examples from history where that has been shown to be (what most people would agree is) immoral. I have one that comes very immediately to mind, but I hate to invoke Godwin's law (although there are plenty of others that don't, and I'm not trying to compare you to him).

Does the end always justify the means?

And is it unreasonable for me to ask how you do something (and then to firstly examine its key flaws), rather than just saying we should move towards that, no matter how we do it, as long as no-one dies as a result?

Edited July 14, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

There are many, many examples from history where that has been shown to be (what most people would agree is) immoral.

whether or not that's true, it's irrelevant in this case.

The rules are equal to all, and therefore moral. Any difference in effect is the result of avoidance of their effect and not the law.

Does the end always justify the means?

for all the while that any positive effects outweigh the negative effects, yep.

The problem then becomes one of measuring what is positive or negative and by how much, but that's outside of what you asked. Your question has a certain answer from any individual's perspective.

And is it unreasonable for me to ask how you do something (and then to firstly examine its key flaws)

it's unreasonable when you expect them to be more-perfect in method than we get from current laws, yes.

That doesn't mean they can't be more-perfect in method, it merely means that they don't need to be more-perfect in method. Any measure of improvement is made against what we have now.

At the end of the day, it can't logically come out as anything but better, for anyone who subscribes to the idea that any removal of unmerited privilege is better than leaving privileges untouched (which anyone who claims meritocratic ideals should do).

And this is how come I come back to you - because you don't actually subscribe to what you have claimed. You're looking for a way of avoidance of following thru on that claim.

Avoidance, now there's a thing. Who'd have thought it?

Edited July 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[eoJ]

1. The point I'm making, is that the rules aren't necessarily equal to all. We've delved a little into how that's so, but without looking at the flaws, we can't fully address that.

2. Yes, agreed. However, that relies on an assumption that we have a reasonable understanding of what the negative effects are. Without knowing what they are (or at least the key ones), we can't decide whether the end justifies the means, true?

3. Why don't they (when talking about the key flaws, I realise and accept that there will be minor kinks) need to be more perfect in method (at least overall, to an extent where the benefit is justified)?

4 (Removal of privilege). Yes, that's fine, and something I agree with. Whether I feel your system is more or less equal and fair in removing (inherited) privilege is something I can't say without understanding the flaws (as well as the merits, although as I've said, those are fairly apparent, which is why I've mainly focused on the flaws, and always do, in anything, whether it's a new system of government, tax regime, or a business idea - doesn't necessarily mean I think the idea is bad, or shouldn't be done).

Edited July 14, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

Edited July 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[eoJ]

Moving this to the top, so you see it first, before writing responses: I don't ask for anything other than point 2 to be addressed at the moment, once we move onto the comparison stage, we can address the others.

1. That's a point for later in the discussion. At that point, I may have forgotten about it, so feel free to simply quote it, to save re-typing it.

2. Another point that I can't fully address without seeing the key flaws (again, as above, feel free to quote once we've examined the flaws of both sides without comparison, and move onto the comparison stage). http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/187376-inheritance-tax/page-13#entry4443312 is the key post in regards to my questions about your system. I may have some more, if you feel any of them are minor flaws (meaning that they won't have a broad and major effect, or aren't relevant to my argument) tell me (although I have reasons for asking all the ones I've asked so far), and do the same if you feel any of them are necessary flaws that should be left in, or unnecessary ones that should be scrapped.

3. I agree, Libertarianism is in no way perfect, and has some major flaws, which is why I further developed it with the system I linked to on the last page. I merely feel it's the best of a bad bunch, and I'd choose the Libertarian party over Labour, Lib dem, or Conservative. Ideally, I'd choose the system I outlined, but we're getting off course.

The aim of an improved system is a sensible one, although whether it reaches that aim while being more than or equal to the current system, in terms of fairness and effectiveness, is something we need to address in the comparison stage.

4. Not necessarily, any more than only applying an increased rate of IHT to southerners, or those with blue eyes, etc. would be better. However, again, an issue to be discussed in the comparison stage.

Edited July 14, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

2. "Seed investment".

You think it's not fair if someone isn't getting privileges via their family.

Haven't you spotted the fatal flaw in that complaint yet?

FFS.

[eFestivals]

2. "partnership rules"

You think it's not fair if someone isn't getting privileges via someone else's death.

Haven't you spotted the fatal flaw in that complaint yet?

FFS.

[eFestivals]

I'd choose the Libertarian party over Labour, Lib dem, or Conservative.

and Nigel will appreciate your vote for him.

[eoJ]

1. Don't assume what I feel is fair, or not fair. At this stage, we're just trying to find out the key flaws (if they are flaws, but if you feel they're not, just clearly say you would leave that in). I asked several questions in the seed investment bit, it would be good to hear your answers to them (not being facetious or arsey).

2. As above.

Nigel Farage: again off topic, but that vile, incompetent man is never getting my vote, and I highly doubt UKIP's ever getting in, at least in the near future. If they do, then I'll be making space for an immigrant, and heading somewhere warmer.

Edited July 14, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

1. Don't assume what I feel is fair, or not fair.

I've not.

You've argued that not being able to get a preferential deal from your folks is a flaw, and not being able to inherit is a flaw (no, that's its very purpose).

It rather gives you away.

I asked several questions in the seed investment bit, it would be good to hear your answers to them (not being facetious or arsey).

You were advocating for kiddie to have preferential terms from daddy, as a result of who his daddy is.

Shall we play "spot the privileges"? You first.

Nigel Farage: again off topic, but that vile, incompetent man is never getting my vote, and I highly doubt UKIP's ever getting in, at least in the near future. If they do, then I'll be making space for an immigrant, and heading somewhere warmer.

And yet they most closely represent what you say you believe. Odd.

[eoJ]

1/2: Answer the questions in the linked post, and we can continue. If they're unclear, tell me which ones, and I can rephrase them.

3: Hitler liked animals. I like animals. Therefore, I like Hitler.

Edited July 14, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

1/2: Answer the questions in the linked post, and we can continue. If they're unclear, tell me which ones, and I can rephrase them.

I've already given comprehensive answers to the partnership rules part. If it needs repeating i'm wasting my time completely.

And seed capital? What you see as flaw is fairness, and what you see as no-flaw is the granting of privileges. It cannot be logically different to this, as the purpose is to lessen privileges passed thru families.

[eoJ]

1 (Seed capital). Once you clearly answer the individual questions in that post, I can respond.

2 (Partnership rules). Throw a link my way. If you're talking about http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/187376-inheritance-tax/page-13#entry4444023 then how it works is still an issue, the government can't just introduce a new system, and expect people to just work it out, with no thought as to how they're going to, if it's not clear.

Limited companies still raise the same problem. Currently, that problem is handled by shares being passed on to the heir, but that's an obvious problem.

Edited July 14, 2014 by eoJ

[feral chile]

Suggesting that someone could survive without inheritance isn't the same as same as killing x number of pensioners to cure a child of AIDS.

However, if you want to use that kind of analogy, if increasing the state pension would stop x number of pensioners dying of hypothermia, at the cost of someone having to forgo income they had never actually had in the first place and therefore they won't actually lose anything they already have -

Should we?

Edited July 14, 2014 by feral chile

[eoJ]

FC: Merely a point to illustrate that the end doesn't always justify the means.

What point are you trying to raise?

Edited July 14, 2014 by eoJ

[feral chile]

FC: Merely a point to illustrate that the end doesn't always justify the means.

What point are you trying to raise?

A point to illustrate that sometimes the end does justify the means, because the means changes (or prevents) the end of some without actually altering the current circumstances of another.

Also one that better reflects reality in this case.

Edited July 14, 2014 by feral chile