Inheritance Tax

[eFestivals]

Your system does allow unmerited giving though, as it allows for anyone to receive £50k as a gift, or more as a business investment.

you clearly don't understand what a business investment is. Or you only understand fraudulent versions of the idea. One or t'other.

As for the £50k, I'd far rather it wasn't there. But I'm facing the reality of saps like you who would never ever accept having to earn all of their own living for themseloves. It's a sopp to the greedy, in the hope that it might get enough support for the idea (I know, I'm a dreamer).

It's a sopp, but it's a sopp that ends the transfer of great wealth without merit. £50k is not great wealth (tho it's a hell of a lot of money to well over half of the population - over double their yearly wage).

2. Any particular immovable rules?

that it doesn't address anything about the transfer of great wealth for no merit.

It enables the continuation of the transfer of great wealth for no merit. It is designed specifically to do so.

3. It has the intent of taxing all gifting and unmerited wealth transfers, whether before death or after.

It doesn't have the intent of stopping people being gifted with great wealth on no merit.

It very much has the intent of allowing great wealth to remain within families, despite there being no merit for that.

And not only does it have the intent of allowing the fraud of inheritances in a meritocracy to continue, it fully enables that continuation too.

Edited July 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[eoJ]

One thing I thought to add as I was falling asleep last night: If I ask a question, and it's not a very clear request to explain why (i.e. 'why', 'how' etc.) then answering simply with a 'yes.' or 'no.' is fine. I think that may be a cause of you ending up repeating yourself, as often that's all I'm looking for (to re-clarify a small point, to verify I understand your argument). If I need further explanation, I'll ask, but that should save you some typing.

1.1: If I don't, tell me. We've discussed business investments, and you've accepted that ideas can be incredibly hard to value. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for liquidating a business, you might have opened a bookshop in 2000, you might have started a grocers and then had a Tesco open up next to you... etc. In these situations, even if it's an easy idea to value, it would be a common-sense business decision to liquidate, would it not?

1.2 (£50k): You've made many assumptions about me so far, that I dream of inheritance, that I support Nigel, that I've already received a large inheritance, that I don't pay my tax. So far, they haven't been very accurate, so it's best to stick to the facts.

In regards to your point though. CGT has exempt thresholds, just as with your system (except they're yearly, instead of lifetime, but same basic premise). If you feel that CGT should be higher, that would be acceptable, and wouldn't affect my system significantly. It does need to be low enough to keep people encouraged to pay it, and encouraged to stay in the UK if they do receive a wealth transfer of some kind (you don't want everyone leaving the moment they receive any money, that just drains the country of money). However, a hike in CGT would be fine.

2. Let me ask a question. Should we encourage people to leave the country by outright banning gifts over a certain threshold? Is it better to keep someone who's always paid their taxes, but doesn't wish to lose the entire wealth transfer (and will therefore spend it here)? Or is it better to just encourage them to leave, by saying that if they don't, we'll take it all?

3. You're right, it doesn't have the intent of stopping people (neither does IHT). It does have the intent of taxing them though. The rates are up to you, if you feel CGT should be raised to 50% under my system (higher than IHT currently is), that's fine, and within the system, but more fair than having one rate for IHT and one rate for CGT. RE great wealth remaining in families, to take an example, the average person wouldn't be in a position to import a high pricetag product in bulk, even if there's a good margin on them. Under both our systems (and the current system), they would be, keeping the great wealth within the family, but it would at least be taxed.

Edited July 16, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

1.1: If I don't, tell me. We've discussed business investments

I'm not here to teach you every concept under the sun.

But: the value of an investment is the value of the investment.

Your belief of it somehow being as different value is either gross stupidity or fraudulent.

1.2 (£50k): You've made many assumptions about me so far, that I dream of inheritance, that I support Nigel, that I've already received a large inheritance, that I don't pay my tax. So far, they haven't been very accurate, so it's best to stick to the facts.

You certainly don't wish to stop inheritances, as that would be proven by attempting to stop them.

You've stated your alignment with Nigel's ideas (more-so than anyone else, anyway).

They are on-the-ball assumptions from your own words.

In regards to your point though. CGT has exempt thresholds, just as with your system (except they're yearly, instead of lifetime, but same basic premise). If you feel that CGT should be higher, that would be acceptable, and wouldn't affect my system significantly.

true - because anything less than 100% CGT tax continues the transfer of great wealth without merit.

It does need to be low enough to keep people encouraged to pay it,

yeah, because the law should always pander to the desires of law-breakers.

FFS, what you're saying is about as sensible as "burglars should decide if they're guilty and should set the3r own punishments".

2. Let me ask a question. Should we encourage people to leave the country by outright banning gifts over a certain threshold?

Let me ask you a question:-

Are inheritances a bad thing for society or a good thing?

3. You're right, it doesn't have the intent of stopping people

then it's not fit for purpose in my world.

[eoJ]

1.1: I'm not disputing that, I'm simply saying two things. Firstly, that valuations for ideas can vary dramatically, even amongst professionals. And secondly (which was a question, but only requiring a yes or no answer, as I mentioned) that there are legitimate scenarios where it would be a sensible business decision to liquidate. True?

1.2: Stop inheritances: No, but so far no-one has proposed a solution to stop them, only to lower them. RE Nigel, UKIP is an authoritarian party, not a libertarian one. I think the Autobahn was great, doesn't mean I'd vote in Hitler.

1.3 (encouraging people to pay it): No, a more accurate comparison is saying anyone who commits a crime should receive life in prison.

2. Since I'll take that as a no, I'll put forward 2 further questions. Does making all gifts over a limit liable to 100% tax encourage people to leave? And does it help the country if we heavily encourage (or force) anyone receiving a large wealth transfer to leave? In response to yours, they're a necessary evil within the current system, as far as I can see (as no-one so far has put forward a system that stops them).

3. Then neither is yours, as you admit by saying it still allows some unmerited wealth transfers (therefore not stopping them). EDIT: To take your murder example, the murder laws don't have the intent of stopping murders. They have the intent of reducing the number of murders, by creating a punishment for murder, and the intent of providing a framework to define murder, and setting out the punishment that should be imposed if you're charged with murder under those definitions.

Edited July 16, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

1.1: I'm not disputing that, I'm simply saying two things. Firstly, that valuations for ideas can vary dramatically, even amongst professionals.

It's not a problem. Any professional is able to judge whether a deal is real world or not, even if it's not something they'd jump into themselves.

There's either something rational to the investment, or it's a fraud.

Any arguments over one person's opinion gets it put in front of a panel of angels.

It's really not difficult. If it was as difficult as you're pretending, nothing would get of the ground right now (or is it only because they're all fraudulent already?).

And secondly (which was a question, but only requiring a yes or no answer, as I mentioned) that there are legitimate scenarios where it would be a sensible business decision to liquidate. True?

You're not getting the yes or no.

There is only liquidation that is fraudulent or not-fraudulent as far as my rules are concerned.

1.2: Stop inheritances: No, but so far no-one has proposed a solution to stop them, only to lower them.

I've proposed a method of stopping them in all meaningful senses.

It's "great wealth" that is unmerited that is the issue that needs to be stamped on, and not every-weeny-little-instance.

By setting a relatively low threshold, of an amount that's useful without being corrupting, and of an amount that can sometimes be acquired in a day by 'honest' work anyway (I've done it, tho the standard business bullshit needed doesn't class as honest ), it removes the govt from having to be involved in the minute of people's lives.

It breaks the circle. If £50k going around ends up as a problem that still needs addressing, then we can look at things again.

Your own method extracts a bit of money but does nothing about actually addressing the heart of the problem, of massive unmerited wealth being passed between generations for a thousand years.

Does making all gifts over a limit liable to 100% tax encourage people to leave?

Does having freeloading c**ts within society encourage people to want them to stay?

And does it help the country if we heavily encourage (or force) anyone receiving a large wealth transfer to leave?

probably.

But they'd find less ways to escape with their cash if the buyers of assets of the fraudsters had legal comeback for handling what turn out to be stolen goods (if it's good enough for the petty crim than it's good eno0ugh for the rich kids too).

There's always a way. But only if you want to find a way, rather than only ever trying to find a way out.

3.

You don't get the remotest part of anything I've said, do you? Edited July 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[eoJ]

1.1. That's fine, I've never said anything about ones that are clearly fraudulent.

Second part: Just because you can't see the point I'm leading to yet, doesn't mean it's not there. As long as you agree with that (and it's a basic fact, I know, but I just needed a 'yes') then I can move onto it.

So you've already agreed that a legitimate investment in a business is fine if over the threshold. You've also agreed that there are legitimate reasons for liquidating your business. To follow on from those points, I'll lay out a scenario. Mummy and daddy invest £600k in child's business idea, legitimately. Naturally, it wouldn't make sense for them to have all the equity, and this is a really brilliant idea, and they consider their child to be a hard worker. However, they die, and shortly after, *insert legitimate reason for liquidation* happens, causing the child to have to liquidate/sell the business. How would that work? They have their equity in the business, and now, they're receiving a lump sum, well over the gifting threshold, that doesn't correspond to the work they put in. Is the money all seized?

1.2. I do see your point (although it does hinge a bit around your next two quotes, which I'll address in a second). If we removed inheritance tax, changed CGT to 100% (except on sale of businesses, or legitimate investments, such as gold - excluding fraud obviously, as with the current system), maybe changed the band from a yearly one to a lifetime one of £50k, would you say that would match your system reasonably closely?

2.1. Those will always exist, rich or poor.

2.2. Dave suddenly receives word from his great Aunt Gladys that she's going to die soon, he can have the lot, and by the way, she's a multi-millionaire. Does Dave take £50k, buy some double glazing for his house, get that problem with the roof fixed, and maybe buy a new car, before giving the rest to the government and returning to the job he hates at the factory for the rest of his life, or does he bugger off to the South of France? (Previous question is rhetorical) What would the average person do, in your opinion? (And not me, I've made it clear that I have no desires for inheritance, I have no immediate desires to leave the country, and I like my work.)

Dave has paid tax all his life, and up until now has paid his fair share. Everyone's welcome to leave as they wish, you're not obligated to continue to live in the UK. Would things not be better if he stayed in the UK, so that the money could be spent there (with VAT paid on any goods he buys, and corporation/income tax paid on any profits from his spending)? Otherwise, gradually, more and more money flows out of the UK, and anyone thinking of coming to the UK with their money, is put off because all but £50k of it (if they have only one descendant) will disappear upon their death, unlike all the other options.

Of course you can't have 0% tax, or allow people to choose their own tax rate, but you have to set a balance, where you're not putting wealthy people off from either coming here, or staying here.

3. You were repeatedly using the words 'allows for the transfer of wealth on no merit' - I was merely pointing out that yours does the same, and that neither have the intent of 'stopping it'. However, you've now rectified that to the transfer of great wealth (you and your partner's lifetime receiving limit would be £100k, not a small amount, and I wouldn't call it 'eeny-weeny', but I will accept not 'great').

Edited July 16, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

1.1 if you invent a scenario that is outside the system I said would operate, rather unsurprisingly, it's outside of the effects that my system would have.

FFS.

Talk about trying every idiot trick.

[eoJ]

1.1 What part of it is outside the system specifically? We'd already discussed business investments over the £50k threshold here: http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/187376-inheritance-tax/?view=findpost&p=4442259 and I'd specified in my example that the investment wasn't fraudulent.

and the others (especially 1.2 and 2.2)?

Edited July 17, 2014 by eoJ

[eFestivals]

1.1 What part of it is outside the system specifically? We'd already discussed business investments over the £50k threshold here: http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/187376-inheritance-tax/?view=findpost&p=4442259 and I'd specified in my example that the investment wasn't fraudulent.

and the others (especially 1.2 and 2.2)?

care to tell me how kiddie ends up with ownership of daddy's shares to benefit from them via a liquidation?

You're inventing total bollocks just to sustain an argument over a point that you clearly have no sensible argument for (else you'd have given one by now).

Edited July 17, 2014 by eFestivals

[eoJ]

care to tell me how kiddie ends up with ownership of daddy's shares to benefit from them via a liquidation?

You're inventing total bollocks just to sustain an argument over a point that you clearly have no sensible argument for (else you'd have given one by now).

Not daddy's shares, his.

[eFestivals]

Not daddy's shares, his.

then he's not inheriting anything from daddy, is he?

[eoJ]

then he's not inheriting anything from daddy, is he?

He is if daddy was the sole investor.

and the others (especially 1.2 and 2.2)?

[eFestivals]

He is if daddy was the sole investor.

Nope. There's no advantage via death of anything.

Daddy invested on commercial terms; Kiddie doesn't get given anything of Daddy's investment on Daddy's death.

Kiddie can only liquidate if the other shareholders agree. If kiddie does that then he's liquidating his own opportunity to make his own idea a success and so make his own life a financial success.

So ultimately daddy alive or dead makes no difference, cos the company could be liquidated at any time if that's what the shareholders wanted to do.

But set around that (even as things are today) are the rules of share capital and capital gains, etc, etc - where any acquiring of wealth thru an investment gets treated as a financial gain.

So, a few extra rules of investment can be put around investments in start-ups (such as liquidation only being allowed when the original investment capital has been eaten up) and it's sorted. Each would know at the start there couldn't be a wealth transfer via the investment, and if that stopped any investment happening then that would only confirm that no genuine investment was going to take place anyway.

[ThomThomDrum]

I have not noted in this debate if this was posted yet. It may be interesting and funny to some

[Thearg]

I've just been watching the Fulfords on the telly and the eldest son inherits the estate and the rest get nothing but I wondered how on earth they get round paying the 40% IHT as it it would cost a fortune to be able to hand down your country pile,as most of the gentry who own these old houses seem to be struggling on the upkeep of these houses so I did a bit of digging and it turns out farms and historical estates are exempt so they can be kept within the family,as my family has just shelled out on IHT this seems massively unfair and it seems the very rich get to keep their money.

Now I'm not having a pop at the rich I think IHT is unfair and should be abolished for everyone but I do think people living in huge country mansions is vulgar in this day and age.

It just beggars belief that's all but talk about the establishment looking after themselves.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

but I do think people living in huge country mansions is vulgar in this day and age.

It just beggars belief that's all but talk about the establishment looking after themselves.

Apart from the creation of flat's, what else use would these buildings have, if not occupied by some family? Whether we like it or not they are a part of this country's heritage, and need to be preserved for the educational benefit of future generations. There's evidently not enough charity money to restore / maintain a lot of architectural history, so anything is better than nothing. All that said, I have a very deep feeling that I'm missing something. If this is the case I suspect I'll be told soon enough. Fire away.

[Thearg]

No you've got a point I just couldn't live in one myself,it wouldn't feel right.

A lot of them have been converted into flats,maybe with the housing shortage this is the answer,yes they have to be looked after and they would be and are in some cases by ''new'' money which isn't right either.

Maybe the answer lies in opening them as public parks and art centers etc that pay for themselves but keeping some rule that you can hand down an estate to your next in line while everyone else has to pay taxes,it all feels a bit feudal to me and archaic.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Surely they'd be too many houses / stately homes / mansions to become art centres etc? Don't get me wrong, it would get my vote.

I like the look of these places, but wouldn't want to live in one either. To actually want to live in one, as oppossed to inheriting one, would be madness.

[kaosmark2]

Now I'm not having a pop at the rich I think IHT is unfair and should be abolished for everyone

I disagree. I think Inheritance is far more unfair than inheritance tax. I reckon it should be increased for everyone, particularly the rich.

[russycarps]

Now I'm not having a pop at the rich I think IHT is unfair and should be abolished for everyone

you think inheritance tax should be scrapped? So you are happy for the rich to remain rich just because of the billions to one chance of being born into the "right" family? You dont agree with individual accomplishment and advancement?

Why should someone who has not done a single days work in their life inherit millions of pounds, just because they won the sperm lottery?

And lets not forget the majority of these stately homes and massive estates have been acquired by nefarious means centuries ago and built up on the blood of others.

[Thearg]

No I don't think its fair,we get taxed at every turn in life and then the final insult when we die especially if the estate is split between lots of beneficiaries.

Gaining wealth through nefarious means is a different matter of course and as I say they don't seem to pay any at all and I don't think you should be able to earn that sort of wealth in the first place.

[kaosmark2]

No I don't think its fair,we get taxed at every turn in life and then the final insult when we die especially if the estate is split between lots of beneficiaries.

Gaining wealth through nefarious means is a different matter of course and as I say they don't seem to pay any at all and I don't think you should be able to earn that sort of wealth in the first place.

If wealth is inherited, then with that wealth comes greater opportunities for only those, and greater inequality.

The taxation system is that money gets taxed at every point of transfer. This is right, it keeps money flowing back into the public coffers, it keeps money rotating, it keeps it getting spent. If it just goes into some 50 year old's bank account and their investment portfolio it does far less good than if it funds public services.

It's not an insult for your money to be spread throughout society, particularly when you die, what is far more insulting is the public attitude of "mine".

[Thearg]

Interesting point,I guess I'm pissed off that the gvmt dipped their hands in my families pocket.

I shall think on.

[kaosmark2]

Interesting point,I guess I'm pissed off that the gvmt dipped their hands in my families pocket.

I shall think on.

Very few people like paying tax, but taking the time to think about it and it is (mostly) a good thing. I'm glad you're pondering.

[Thearg]

Very few people like paying tax, but taking the time to think about it and it is (mostly) a good thing. I'm glad you're pondering.

Don't worry I'm not about to run into the tax office and give them the rest just yet.