inheritance tax should be 100%.

[BigFatCoward]

Now this may be because i stand to inherit very little, but i strongly beleive that if you were raised in a wealthy family you have already had every single advantage going. you probably went to a good school, you will probably had supportive parents who wanted and expected you to do well. If you don't succeed under those circumstances you have nobody to blame but yourself. you shouldn't then get another bite at the cherry when you screwed up your big break.

to paraphrase Warren Buffet 'not having a prohibitive inheritance tax is the equivalent of picking the first born son of the 2000 olympics squad for the 2020 olympics squad'

i'm aware of the difficulties of implementation, i am more interested in peoples moral standpoint on the issue.

[一方通行]

yes of course! :thumbsup:

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

200% or bust.

[mormont]

I've always said that if you are going to talk about how you believe in a meritocratic society, and expect to be taken seriously, then you need to be in favour of 100% inheritance tax. That's an essential starting point.

However, most people don't actually want a wholly meritocratic society. They like the concept, they like to have a certain degree of merit in the system, and they find it convenient to pretend that degree is actually far larger than it actually is. But they want to retain the option to favour their children, which is a perfectly human instinct. Nothing wrong with that, so long as we're honest about it. Don't allow people to delude you into thinking that we live in a society where birth isn't important: generally, the people who're doing this have an agenda. They inherited power and money and they want you to think their dumb luck is actually their just desserts.

[HT Reddy]

i don't expect to inherit anything (and i sincerely hope that that won't be relevant for many many years anyway) and i understand the argument, but i hate the idea of a 100% inheritance tax, simply because to me the implications of that is that one should not try to save money but should spend everything you have on yourself before you die, otherwise it reverts to the state. I hate the idea of living simply to earn money for oneself, and like the idea of wanting to save to leave your children something. Actually thinking about it, if it was a 100% inheritance tax but the money went to charity instead of to the state (and to a charity taht you could choose) I'd be in favour. Just don't like the idea of giving people incentives to spend all their money on themselves.

[MinDonner]

I know the surface perception is Charities Nice! Government Evil! - but there are a lot of good reasons to prefer a tax to a charitable donation. For a start, giving free choice of charity is likely to result in, say, the Cats' Protection League having gold-plated litter trays while the local battered women's shelter can barely afford hot water (this disparity already happens with voluntary charity-giving). You then also get the stigma attached to being a charity-case, whereas with state support there's much more of a feeling that you have already paid for it with your own taxes, and is an earned right rather than a generous boon bestowed by your betters.

[HT Reddy]

I know the surface perception is Charities Nice! Government Evil! - but there are a lot of good reasons to prefer a tax to a charitable donation. For a start, giving free choice of charity is likely to result in, say, the Cats' Protection League having gold-plated litter trays while the local battered women's shelter can barely afford hot water (this disparity already happens with voluntary charity-giving). You then also get the stigma attached to being a charity-case, whereas with state support there's much more of a feeling that you have already paid for it with your own taxes, and is an earned right rather than a generous boon bestowed by your betters.

Hmmm, maybe a ring-fenced tax that actually goes towards battered women's shelters or something? I understand what you are saying but I can't stop myself feeling revolted that when i die instead of leaving money i've carefully saved to my children it would go to pay Malcolm Tucker's salary. I know that's irrational, but I don't think it's unreasonable.

[Filippa Eilhart]

I've always said that if you are going to talk about how you believe in a meritocratic society, and expect to be taken seriously, then you need to be in favour of 100% inheritance tax. That's an essential starting point.

well, the essential starting point would be to be taken away from your parents at birth so everyone starts on equal footing. :P

---

very silly idea, IMO.

[gryphon strike]

Speaking as someone who actually stands to inherit a fair bit I would be in favour of a 100% inheritance tax or put more accurately a 100% death duty.

But lets look at this a bit more realistically.

If this is the case then foreign investment cannot be allowed in things like property or else soon your population will not be able to afford houses.

Second the truly rich will find a way around it either by moving their money to countries where inheritance is free or something similar.

So unless it is a global death duty sorry but it will not work.

[S John]

Would this affect non- monetary things? Like, would the government get the family farm?

As far as I know, I don't stand to inherit anything substantial. And I'm not one to sympathize with the silver spoon crowd.... but say one day I became wealthy and had millions of dollars in the bank and then a 100% inheritance tax was implemented. If I were unable to give that money to family, I promise you that I would blow as much of it as possible rather than give it to the government. Having a 100% inheritance tax is basically saying that the government owns your ass and the tangible fruits of your life's work belong to them, all they have to do is wait for you to die. No thanks.

[sToNED_CAT]

It's very nice thing - teoretically. In real world it would mean just huge tax avoidance and capital flight.

[Lupigis]

Institute a 100% inheritance tax and watch people start giving their children gifts like never before...

[BigFatCoward]

Having a 100% inheritance tax is basically saying that the government owns your ass and the tangible fruits of your life's work belong to them, all they have to do is wait for you to die. No thanks.

do you think you'd feel the same though if you had had unbeleivable schooling and healthcare and the streets were safe and the infrastructure of wherever you are was amazing? if inheritance tax hit 100% and it was properly managed these things would be possible. you are probably reluctant at present because all of those things are not in place.

or do you think 'no way, no how, no matter what'?

[KAH]

As Lupigis said, there are ways to circumvent inheritance tax by gifts - this is already done today, and would increase hugely with a 100% 'death tax'.

So in order for it to be effective, it seems to me that you'd have to install a 100% tax on gifts as well. Still desirable?

[mormont]

well, the essential starting point would be to be taken away from your parents at birth so everyone starts on equal footing. :P

---

very silly idea, IMO.

Oh, of course. I'm not saying a 100% inheritance tax could be done, any more than taking people away from their parents. A pure meritocracy is impossible in practise: that's my point. If anybody tells you you're living in one, or even something approaching one, they're selling snake oil.

I would favour an increase in inheritance tax, though, because at the moment I think it's too low (in the UK at least).

[baxus]

keep in mind that everything a person stands to inherit has already been taxed, possibly more than once...

[gryphon strike]

Institute a 100% inheritance tax and watch people start giving their children gifts like never before...

Death duties which is the name we call it by here also comes with Gift Tax so just giving it away doesn't work either.

What would happen is that your nations wealth moves offshore.

[S John]

do you think you'd feel the same though if you had had unbeleivable schooling and healthcare and the streets were safe and the infrastructure of wherever you are was amazing? if inheritance tax hit 100% and it was properly managed these things would be possible. you are probably reluctant at present because all of those things are not in place.

or do you think 'no way, no how, no matter what'?

I say no way, no how, no matter what. Ultimately you are putting a lot of faith in government here. Too much, IMO. The government being granted control of 100% of everyones estate seems... totalitarian. People fight wars over much less. Why not just cut out the middle man, tax everyones income at 100%, and ration everything out? If you ask me, that would suck all kinds of balls. It maybe seems like a nice Utopian idea, but I see it more as a back door way for government control everything. I'm perfectly content to play nice and abide by certain rules of society, but I am not OK with the government taking everything in the event of my death.

[Usotsuki]

Then how would you feel about including inheritance in the normal calculations of income? Is there a particular merit to inheritance that means it should be exempted from income tax?

The US and the UK are two of the most caste-ridden societies in the developed world (*Edited) - if they were to shift to a system of including inheritance in calculations of income that would go some way towards reducing the ingrained inequality of these relative oligarchies.

*Apparently Italy is very bad too - oopsie

[Hereward]

So, no exemption, but added to the income for the year and taxed at normal rates for income with the same ceilngs? I could live with that. Provided we get those shiny new aircraft carriers I was promised from the proceeds.