/ 100% Death Tax

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 15 Jan 2013
What do people think? One of the biggest problems in society is wealth locked up in land and passed down through families. This then gives some children a ludicrously disproportionate advantage over others, stopping the vast majority realising their full potential. Such a tax would encourage much more productive spending, mean money only went to those who earned it and greatly improve our current housing prices.

Obviously gifts to children would also have to be taxed and spending on private education.

The money obviously has no more obvious recipient than the state that made earning possible. So why shouldn't we do this? The only thing I can think of is that people may be less productive in old age.

The benefits being: many more people achieving their economic potential, lower income taxes and better public services. A further positive outcome would be watch adverts featuring well dressed Swiss fathers and sons would no longer exist.

Come on right wing nutjobs its time to argue for those people far richer and successful than yourselves.
NickD - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> One of the biggest problems in society is wealth locked up in land and passed down through families.

Really? What are the others?
thin bob on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to NickD:
> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf)
> [...]
>
> Really? What are the others?

All the money tied up in houses (also 'unearned wealth').
the discrepancy between the highest and lowest paid.
education.
social mobility.
cander - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

I'd open a Belize limited company, run by a Belize trust and have the banking in southern Cyprus (all for 1250 plus VAT) ..... The tax man would get the VAT on the cost of setting up the company and then 100% of the zero UK funds that where left. It's easy to do and the lizard people working for HMRC can't get at your families money.

Edradour - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
>
> Come on right wing nutjobs its time to argue for those people far richer and successful than yourselves.

As balanced as ever.

mypyrex - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf: If I thought for one moment that the government rather than any potential beneficiaries were going to get every penny worth of my assets - that I have saved for, paid taxes on earnings etc - I would spend every penny of it(and leave the government my overdraft)
Simon4 - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:

> As balanced as ever.

Oh come on, its immensely balanced - only insult strength 2.

After all, he left out bigots, swivel-eyed, zenophobes, little-Englanders, morons, Daily Mail readers.

Not likely to provoke a meaningful discussion though, so as a troll, only 2/10
macstinator on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

What a complete load of nonsense.

The real money is in financial transaction taxes, which Cameron, being a complete cock, has refused to institute. If this was introduced EU wide, we would be looking at an extra 46bn a year.
owennewcastle - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to mypyrex:

I think thats the point (bar the overdraft bit)
davidbeynon - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

If I die tomorrow then would my wife be expected to sell our house so that she could give the government my half of the assets, or would she be allowed to stay put and pay rent?
SAF - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf: I can see both sides of the arguement...

My dad always raised me on the principle that I would be well prepared to support myself through life, he paid for all my driving lessons, first car and everything that went with it, uni, interest free deposit for my first house I bought. He has also always made it clear that I should not expect any significant amount on his or my mums death, as he plans on spending his money that is tied up in his house on an enjoyable retirment and if neccesary the best Nursing home he can find. Thus I have no problem with the principle of not having an automatic right to recieve money on the death of a relative.

On the flip side, on of my closest friends is from a wealthy family, her father was a self made millionaire in property and she now owns a fantastic property, the house she owns is one that her father built (as there holiday home!!!) he bought the plots of land in the late 40/early 50s and visited it with his best mate to camp and fish whilst massive luxery homes popped up around it, eventually when he was wealthy enough (early 70s) he built a massive house/pool etc himself. He died when my friend was only in her early 20s and thus the house has massive sentimental value. Due to the way the property market has gone it is now worht in the millions and she could easily have lost it with higher inheritence tax rates. She actually went out campaigning on behalf of the conservative party, purely based on their stance on inheritence tax... her husband (a copper) and I took the piss...just a little :-)

I would never want to see her, or her daughters lose this place...
Steve John B - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf: Get a dog, it might help you calm down. You seem a little disturbed.
Neil Williams - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF:

My personal view is that, except for vice taxes which exist to change motivations, of which there should be very few, the only tax there should be is income tax, charged at a suitable rate or set of rates, with a very limited set of reliefs e.g. for actual business expenditure.

Much less complicated, and much easier to administer. Salaries would have to rise, but as setting up a company would be simpler and less expensive there would likely be more work in the economy.

Neil
timjones - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

So in essence you want every generation to effectively have to purchase their homes off the state?
AWR on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> Come on right wing nutjobs its time to argue for those people far richer and successful than yourselves.

In opposition to a left-wing nutjob like you, spouting shit on the internet? Not point, you won't listen anyway.

Lord_ash2000 - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf: If the death tax was 100% I think most people who have any real amount of asserts would sell up and move it all out of the UK.

Frankly if it was 100%, and I was old, wealthy and the end was nearing I'd rather liquidate all my asserts and be cremated on the pile of money rather than hand it all over to the government.
PeterM - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
>100% Death Tax
No

You're a tool?
EeeByGum - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf: Its a nice idea but there are easy ways around it. For example, you would find rich parents giving their kids diamond jewellery and the like on their death beds.
Axel Smeets - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf) Its a nice idea but there are easy ways around it. For example, you would find rich parents giving their kids diamond jewellery and the like on their death beds.

There's a seven/fourteen year rule to avoid this type of activity. Google IHT PETs and CLTs
elsewhere on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
Most countries have a combination of income tax, sales/VAT/import or "vice" tax on transactions and a tax on property. The advantage of a property tax is that it's relatively difficult to evade so you can at least get something out of your local drug dealer etc who has no declared income!
Wiley Coyote - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
Spoken like the 20 year old your profile shows. Come back in 40 years when you've done a few decades at the coal face and we'll discuss again how you feel about giving all your hard-earned to George Osborne (or his equally odious and incompetent successor in Number 11) to squander on half-baked schemes rather than handing it on to your nearest and dearest.
Scarab9 - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

<sigh>

"One of the biggest problems in society is wealth locked up in land and passed down through families."

ok I'm on lunch and passing some time so I suppose I'll read the rest of your post, but this just rather put me off bothering as I expect the rest is idiocy too
mypyrex - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf: You're Nick Clegg and I claim my 5
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to macstinator: "The real money is in financial transaction taxes, which Cameron, being a complete cock, has refused to institute. If this was introduced EU wide, we would be looking at an extra 46bn a year."

??

SDRT..stamp duty reserve tax. 50bp on all UK equities traded and 150bps on issuances of UK shares into ADRs. Been doing it for donkeys years. The French have just implemented their own version late 2012 and the Italians about to later this year.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/sdrt/intro/basics.htm

Maybe worth reading that before wading in with your Camerons a cock diatribe next time.
EeeByGum - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Axel Smeets:

> There's a seven/fourteen year rule to avoid this type of activity. Google IHT PETs and CLTs

Agreed. And somehow, rich people never seem to fall foul of such rules. My point is that whatever death duty rules you impose, people will always find a way around them.
Scarab9 - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> What do people think? One of the biggest problems in society is wealth locked up in land and passed down through families.

as mentioned- idiocy. If you can't think of a long list of bigger problems you live a very sheltered life or have just suffered a severe head trauma

> This then gives some children a ludicrously disproportionate advantage over others,

yeah ok you could argue that. Though there are other things that are important for a child to develop too you know.

> stopping the vast majority realising their full potential.

er...why? If you've apparently given them such a huge advantage how does that equate to them not reaching their potential? And what do we consider to be their potential? I'm sure a lot of rich kids might say "ok so I didn't win a nobel prize but I've had a great life with little stress and been able to provide for MY kids without scraping for money, that's more than most people".

> Such a tax would encourage much more productive spending, mean money only went to those who earned it and greatly improve our current housing prices.

now you're getting things confused. Are you suggesting that the state also take houses away when people die? or are you suggesting that all the buy to let landlords out there were born with riches?

>
> Obviously gifts to children would also have to be taxed and spending on private education.
>
> The money obviously has no more obvious recipient than the state that made earning possible. So why shouldn't we do this? The only thing I can think of is that people may be less productive in old age.
>

so you work hard all your life to provide for your children then the state takes your money? Surely what would actually happen is people would blow their money on holidays and the like instead if there was no point in saving? And how is that fare to say "yo kids, you've grown up in that nice house but now you're going to receive NOTHING and have to go rent a hovel for several years until you can build up enough to pay a deposit on a house". Do you really think that's a better way?
Oh and the state already gets a large slice of the money.

> The benefits being: many more people achieving their economic potential,

as above - this is an utterly baseless assumption and deciding for everyone that the worth of their life is purely an econimic one

> lower income taxes and better public services.

also a no as mentioned above. The way people use their money, and quite possibly the way they're paid would change to match the new system. For example would big pensions for CEOs carry on or would other benefits be more inviting? Would we want 100% of our wages or would we trade in some of it for benefits that couldn't be taxed?

A further positive outcome would be watch adverts featuring well dressed Swiss fathers and sons would no longer exist.
>
> Come on right wing nutjobs its time to argue for those people far richer and successful than yourselves.

I don't think this has anything to do with left or right wing. I think you're spouting a pile of crap you haven't bothered to remotely think through.

PeterM - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Scarab9:

He doesn't seem to defending his view. Maybe he's gone back to Fukwitistan...
Philip on 15 Jan 2013
Would the 100% tax prevent people leaving donations to charity?

Would it prevent a man/woman leaving their assets to their partner (eg a car or house)? Don't just think about old people, what about someone who dies in their 30s or 40s leaving behind a partner and children?
A Longleat Boulderer - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

So I might as well give up saving. And screw it, when I'm 50 I'll give up work and just live off the state - don't care about my (not yet existent) kids because the state will deal with them. I'm powerless to help.

F*ck it, I'll earn a bit of cash... blow it on shit and retire.
Timmd on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Simon4:
> (In reply to Fickalli)
>
> [...]
>
> Oh come on, its immensely balanced - only insult strength 2.
>
> After all, he left out bigots, swivel-eyed, zenophobes, little-Englanders, morons, Daily Mail readers.
>
> Not likely to provoke a meaningful discussion though, so as a troll, only 2/10

It is something a relative seriously mentioned once as a good idea after a few glasses of wine.

He has done well for somebody from parents who couldn't afford to take him on holiday, so one can see why he might think that's a fair enough thing to happen, and how it might help to pay for things if it went back into the communal pot as were.

Lets have a meaningfull discussion. Seriously. (:-))
ads.ukclimbing.com
Goucho on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf: Excellent idea.

Then whichever government in is in power, can piss it all away bailing out fat cat bankers, or on wars etc - I doubt any of it would find it's way to funding the NHS properly, or helping the poor or elderly.

When you grow up son, and are actually earning a living and supporting a family, your leftie nonsense will soon be confronted by the cold harsh smack of reality.

But in the meantime, enjoy being predictable.
Timmd on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Scarab9:
> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf)
> [...]
> so you work hard all your life to provide for your children then the state takes your money? Surely what would actually happen is people would blow their money on holidays and the like instead if there was no point in saving? And how is that fare to say "yo kids, you've grown up in that nice house but now you're going to receive NOTHING and have to go rent a hovel for several years until you can build up enough to pay a deposit on a house". Do you really think that's a better way?
> Oh and the state already gets a large slice of the money.

It might happen that there wouldn't be hovels if inheritance went into public housing?
mike kann - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf: Can I be the first to call TROLL. Posts. Riles. Leaves. Job well done. I think there are a number of peoples veins that have burst clear out of their foreheads. Sir I salute you. Unless of course you're serious. In which case you're a numpty.
Timmd on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to mike kann:

Just imagine it though.

Great schools and public housing from people's wealth when they die going into the collective pot, excellent hospital care for all, and a true meritocracy.

I think human nature would find a way around it so parents still pass on thier wealth to thier kids, but if that wasn't the case, would it really be so bad?

I think it could be interesting to explore different viewpoints and thier reasons.
JLS on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

>"100% Death Tax"

You'd might as well go the whole hog and make it 110%. The sooner we get the deficit under control the better. The dead won't mind an extra 10%.
Neil Williams - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:

It's a nice ideal, just like communism.

However, human nature is such that it would never, ever work.

Neil
PeterM - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:

Just imagine it though if the government tightened up existing tax legislation and could actually administer benefit payments efficiently and accurately,and got value for money for it's contracts. I wonder how much the exchequer would be better off?
Timmd on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:Agreed. I don't like communism because it forces everyody to be equal, where at least the 100% death tax ideal lets people go as high as they can economically, in theory.

cb294 - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to mypyrex:
> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf) If I thought for one moment that the government rather than any potential beneficiaries were going to get every penny worth of my assets - that I have saved for, paid taxes on earnings etc - I would spend every penny of it(and leave the government my overdraft)

Minus the overdraft that is exactly the point.

CB
Timmd on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to PeterM:Indeed!
Skyfall - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to cander:

> I'd open a Belize limited company, run by a Belize trust and have the banking in southern Cyprus (all for 1250 plus VAT) ..... The tax man would get the VAT on the cost of setting up the company and then 100% of the zero UK funds that where left.

You mean apart from the fact that for most of us, as UK resident and domiciled individuals, the following tax consequences would follow on:

1. On the transfer to the trust you would create an immediate charge to iinheritance tax at 20% (to the extent that the amount transferred exceeds your IHT nil rate band of 325k).

2. You would have IHT charges at up to 6% on the assets of the trust every ten years, and when property leaves the trust. In addition, if you can benefit from the trust, all the trust property remains in your estate chargeable to IHT when you die. Whoops.

3. Unless you are actually operating some form of genuine business in Cyprus, any income arising to the entire structure would be assessed on you in the UK each year under the settlor interested trust and transfer of assets abroad legislation (s720 ITA 2007) unless the Cyprus/UK double tax treaty protects you from UK tax on certain sources of income arising to the company (the only significant type of income being dividend income from certain companies). The Cyprus company would also pay tax at 10% in Cyprus as well, though admittedly you would get a tax credit for this against your annual UK tax liability.

4. If the Cyprus company actually trades in the UK or if you control it from the UK, it is in any case subject to UK corporation tax.

5. Any capital gains arising to the structure would also be assessed on you in the UK each year as though you had realised them (ss 86 and 13 TCGA 1992).

Or had you simply heard that Belize was where a lot of the dirty money was now going due to the low levels of regulation and abiltity to set up secret trusts, and that Cyprus is indeed a good location to set up a business to use double tax treaties (whcih is what they are primarily there for)?

It isn't that easy is my point and all this golf club talk of offshore structures being an easy way to avoid tax is largely rubbish.
Axel Smeets - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Skyfall:

Nice.

Are you doing your tax exams? The only time I could quickly relate advice like that was during the days of revision. Now it's all forgotten.
Timmd on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to PeterM:

I find the idealogical objections to 100% death tax interesting, in how it'd be somehow right to have an unfair society.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to SAF)
>
> My personal view is that, except for vice taxes which exist to change motivations, of which there should be very few, the only tax there should be is income tax, charged at a suitable rate or set of rates, with a very limited set of reliefs e.g. for actual business expenditure.

I'd say the opposite. The tax system should be rebalanced to make it easier to acquire wealth but harder to keep it. It should be very hard to preserve wealth by passing land down in a family for hundreds of years but relatively easy for someone with a good business idea who works hard to become a millionaire. People should be able to buy houses from their own earnings rather than relying on an inheritance. This would make for a more dynamic and productive society.

There's no need for a 100% death tax. Making sure rich landowners actually paid 40% inheritance tax would be a good start.

Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 15 Jan 2013
Just to add this isn't really a troll as such. I'm interested in a discussion of the policy or the wider arguments around the relative balance inc v wealth taxes and fairness in society.

However, I do admit I am greatly amused by how angrily and personally some people have missed the point as well as how readily right wingers have stood up for the status quo, accepting my challenge.

I am heartened that if there was a country full of myprexs' this policy would work and I don't feel the need for much further posting as Timmd has my views covered more economically on words than I ever could.
Ramblin dave - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh: Yeah - I don't think you could implement a 100% death tax in the real world, but I pretty much agree - surely if anything it's a right wing principle to want society set up to mainly reward people who work hard and do well for themselves rather than to reward people whose great-great-grandparents worked hard and did well for themselves?

(Also, isn't a death tax the ultimate vice tax, so if we stick it at 100%, shouldn't people should just stop dying?)
Skyfall - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Axel Smeets:

No this is my area of expertise as it happens.
David Riley - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Inheritance tax may or may not be justifiable. But it is immoral already.
If you earn money, and pay every tax on it, then it's yours, and you should be able to spend it or give it to whoever you like. To make it work at all there is clawback on gifts 7 years before death now. Any gifts would have to be virtually illegal if it were 100%. That would be a nice civilization to live in wouldn't it ?
Axel Smeets - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Skyfall:

Ah, just realised you've changed your username...
Skyfall - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

I know a surprisingly high number of wealthy individuals who deliberately don't undertake a lot of the IHT planning which they could do and effectively volunteer the tax (or pass it to charity) precisely because they don't think it would be good for their kids to inherit too much.

I'm not sure if that doesn't actually vaguely support your view but, personally, I am against what you propose. A number of countries seem to do very well with having quite significant inheritance/death tax exemptions where money passes directly down the family, and I doubt we have materially lower lifetime taxes in compensation.

Of course the likes of Greece, France and the US are pushing up death/wealth taxes to collect more generally and so it wouldn't surprise me if we see rises of some form. However, I don't think a 100% death tax is healthy as it would stamp out a lot of what makes people build businesses, wealth generation generally and the entrepreneurial spirit. You may just as well live fast, die young and not bother creating anything.
Skyfall - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Axel Smeets:

Sorry to confuse...
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf: are people angry? or did they just ridicule your notion? I also cannot see too many responses spectacularly missing the point. I also don't believe you found it all greatly amusing, especially as this forum is not known for it's hordes of right wing fanatics as you well know, yet barely anyone agreed with you.

But anyway, just because your folks have feck all, don't advertise your bitterness and wish your pain on the rest of us ;-)

It doesn't actually raise that much for such an unpopular tax, which is probably why some parties are wondering if it's a good one to abolish or weaken to gain votes.
Neil Williams - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:

In theory.

What would happen is that rich people would find a workaround, but those who leave their two-bed terrace to their minimum-wage kid lose out.

The idea is sound but it would never work, or at least not without being even more unfair than the status quo.

Neil
mike kann - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf: OK, well if its not a troll, then for what its worth to my mind, this is why it's not as fair as you make out and why it wouldn't work:

Emotions and the nature of humans.

We give birth to children whom we then invest with time and love. We want to make sure that they are OK. So we work hard to make sure that they are, by leaving them something to remember us by and so that hopefully their quality of life is good. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

On the other hand, you bring in a tax that will strip them of this. Quite apart from the arguments that effectively you'll be putting the widower out of house and home, you also leave a situation whereby children who are not of the age to work are then forced into destitution. That certainly isn't fair.

You also have the issue that if you aren't financially rewarded, productivity goes downhill. Whatever happens, there is a certain amount of greed associated with humans, who generally want to improve their lot in life, and those whom they care for. If you remove all assets upon death, what's the point? People will just not bother as there is nothing in it for them. If you earned a heap of money you would be trying to spend it as fast as you could earn it, which is utterly pointless.

Also you have people who are naturally hard working and some who are not. Why on earth should people who are lazy benefit from your hard work? THAT really isn't fair either. I have no problem with money I earn going to those in genuine strife, but just giving all your money to the government so they can spend on duckponds is not my idea of something that's worth doing. You rather presuppose as well that the government knows better than the rest of us what to spend money on, which has been shown many times in many countries not to be the case. This will not change just beacuse there is no longer a deficit.

Also if there is a bigger pot of money, the government will just find more things to spend it on. Most likely wars.
Neil Williams - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

"People should be able to buy houses from their own earnings rather than relying on an inheritance. This would make for a more dynamic and productive society."

People not buying houses at all but instead renting them, and investing in property funds if they wish to do so, would produce a more dynamic, mobile and productive society.

But in the UK, people like owning houses. I do, I admit, particularly as I enjoy doing work on it.

Neil
paul mitchell - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf: The Green Party proposes a tax on land.The more ecologically sound the use of the land ,the less it is taxed.
mypyrex - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

> I am heartened that if there was a country full of myprexs'

I'm sorry to disappoint you but, to a certain extent, my comment was tongue in cheek. If I was in that position I would, by fair means or foul, make damned sure that not one penny of my assets remained in this country.

Have you stopped to think that, if everyone did what I suggested, how much worse off this country might be. There would be an intolerable strain on resources such as health for the simple reason that those who remained in this country and not taken their wealth abroad, having spent their savings etc. would come to have to rely entirely on government funded care and resources.
Ramblin dave - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to mike kann:
> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf) OK, well if its not a troll, then for what its worth to my mind, this is why it's not as fair as you make out and why it wouldn't work:
>
> Emotions and the nature of humans.
>
> We give birth to children whom we then invest with time and love. We want to make sure that they are OK. So we work hard to make sure that they are, by leaving them something to remember us by and so that hopefully their quality of life is good. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
>
> On the other hand, you bring in a tax that will strip them of this. Quite apart from the arguments that effectively you'll be putting the widower out of house and home, you also leave a situation whereby children who are not of the age to work are then forced into destitution. That certainly isn't fair.

An exception in the case of children who aren't old enough to work is certainly fair enough. But I'd guess that these days the majority of people who actually inherit are going to be among the most affluent section of society anyway, ie middle aged, comparatively well paid and often married with the kids off their back. The time when they could really have used a helping hand was when they were struggling along trying to keep up with the mortgage on their vastly expensive shoebox and raising kids of their own...


> You also have the issue that if you aren't financially rewarded, productivity goes downhill. Whatever happens, there is a certain amount of greed associated with humans, who generally want to improve their lot in life, and those whom they care for. If you remove all assets upon death, what's the point? People will just not bother as there is nothing in it for them. If you earned a heap of money you would be trying to spend it as fast as you could earn it, which is utterly pointless.

Apart from not being what our currently culture views as a morally virtuous way to live your life, why is it any more inherently pointless than locking it all away in saving and property to pass on to your kids?
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Ramblin dave: Having no inheritance tax but introducing a proprty tax would go someway to solving some of the issues raised.

Hard to hide a property so technically should be easy to collect on. The problem would be how to work out the correct tax to pay on individual properties.

As I see it, this resolves the issue of "dead money" tied up in expensive property. The adversly effected would be people who are asset rich and cash poor. But the idea would be for them to trade down and become cash rich (abolish stamp on the sale) and hope that some of this new found cash works its way into the economy .

This is just a musing so probably has as many holes in it as swiss cheese, but in principle...if it brought down other taxes, this seems like a logical tax for the government to look at due to the nature of houses not being very "moveable" or "hideable"

thin bob on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
An interesting idea, 'there are no pockets in shrouds' etc.
A bit like religion, in that people are looking to the hereafter, rather than now.

It'd be nice to only work for 20 hours a week, rest of the 'at leisure', including community work.
ads.ukclimbing.com
EeeByGum - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to paul mitchell:
> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf) The Green Party proposes a tax on land.The more ecologically sound the use of the land ,the less it is taxed.

Blimey. That is most farming and food production stuffed then.
wilding - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> What do people think? One of the biggest problems in society is wealth locked up in land and passed down through families. This then gives some children a ludicrously disproportionate advantage over others, stopping the vast majority realising their full potential.

Why are people so focussed on wealth differential being the cause of lack of social mobility? Some people do a better job of raising their children. The children raised with dedication and love will do better in life. It just so happens that diligent hard-working and intelligent people raise their kids better. Nothing to do with wealth.

If you want to be poor then don't finish school, be a single parent, don't get married, and depend on benefits. None of these decisions can be changed by giving the government more money.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to wilding: Where to start?

Have you seen the percentages of public school people in the most important jobs in the land? Did they simply have more love from their parents? Were their parents more intelligent? No but they had a lot of money spent on their education, their wealth also allowed them to gain contacts and work as interns for free while living v. comfortable lives.

'Intelligence' in the economically valued sense of the word is harder to come by if your poor. Doing homework in a freezing cold flat after an insufficient meal while your mum slaves away all night in some minimum wage cleaning job is harder than after nice beef wellington, in a warm bedroom with your parents or a tutor watching over you. the first situation is very uncomfortable and frankly the quickest way out is to sack school ASAP and get a job. In the second situation why wouldn't you continue?

All your variables do correlate to poor educational performance but that's because money looms large in the determinants of them. Furthermore, being a single parent is only really a problem if you cannot afford decent child care.

A tiny proportion of people may choose a life on unemployment support, around 1% of all unemployed people have never had work. Though this choice has little to recommend, 70 quid a week and maybe a shitty PRS flat thrown in .

So as you see leaving school and unemployment support claimants are linked inextricably to wealth. Not getting married and being a single parent, the later is only a problem if they are poor. The former, well I don't think getting married is a way of getting rich (unless you marry into money) or ensuring a child is loved.

Do some thinking about the determinants of the determinants before you post again.
wilding - on 15 Jan 2013

> So as you see leaving school and unemployment support claimants are linked inextricably to wealth. Not getting married and being a single parent, the later is only a problem if they are poor. The former, well I don't think getting married is a way of getting rich (unless you marry into money) or ensuring a child is loved.



A person is defined by their actions, not the amount of money they have or make. Just because you don't have money doesn't mean you can't love, care and nurture your child. It is hard to be poor if you take the right actions, and make the right choices. Society has a way of rewarding good decisions punishing poor decisions. Even if you applied an 100% death tax the same kids would succeed and the same kids would fail. It is unrelated to money.

I realise that you want to explain away your shitty life by blaming society, but you really should look closer to home.




Eric9Points - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> What do people think? One of the biggest problems in society is wealth locked up in land and passed down through families. This then gives some children a ludicrously disproportionate advantage over others, stopping the vast majority realising their full potential.

Having reflected on this for a minutes I've come to the conclusion that you're talking pish.

Yes, rich people tend to get on a bit better than the rest of us but there are plenty of examples of people starting from ordinary backgrounds and getting to the top of whatever tree they chose to climb. They're just more talented and driven than the rest of us. I don't think that if we slaughtered the landed gentry the UK would become a significantly better place over night. There aren't enough of them and they don't hold enough power any more. A couple of hundred years of social reform have seen to that.

I assume you'd also take the homes off ordinary people too? I guess what would happen is that people would probably raise a secured loan to pay off the tax bill and then rent out the property until they could afford to move back in again. Good business for the banks.
Eric9Points - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to wilding:
>
>
> I realise that you want to explain away your shitty life by blaming society, but you really should look closer to home.

I was thinking that too but forgot to say it.
Timmd on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to wilding:

> I realise that you want to explain away your shitty life by blaming society, but you really should look closer to home.

But but but, i'm sure i've heard of studies which have found that the life chances of children born now are linked to the income of thier parents more than it has been since the 60s.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/4217852/Parents-background-determines-life-chances-of...

Here you go, from the Torygraph.
Owen W-G - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

If you exempted spouses, the surviving spouse of a marriage could repeatedly remarry to keep the money out of the state's hands
Timmd on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to wilding)
>
> [...]
>
> But but but, i'm sure i've heard of studies which have found that the life chances of children born now are linked to the income of thier parents more than it has been since the 60s.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/4217852/Parents-background-determines-life-chances-of...
>
> Here you go, from the Torygraph.

http://www.investmentsense.co.uk/gap-between-rich-and-poor-widest-for-40-years/

Oops, it's the gap between the rich and poor which is the widest, though if you put the widening gap together with children from higher income off backgrounds generally doing better, it doesn't paint too good a picture.
wilding - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to wilding)
>
> [...]
>
> But but but, i'm sure i've heard of studies which have found that the life chances of children born now are linked to the income of thier parents more than it has been since the 60s.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/4217852/Parents-background-determines-life-chances-of...
>
> Here you go, from the Torygraph.

Indeed.
My point is that income is mostly related to a persons diligence. If someone makes the right choices then they will not be poor.
Likewise, good parenting is mostly related to a persons diligence. People that make the right choices are better parents.

Money is a consequence, not the cause, of a person's decisions and actions.

omerta on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

I'd like to see us stop subscribing to the cutesy little idea that society can ever be fair
tom_in_edinburgh - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf)
>
> Yes, rich people tend to get on a bit better than the rest of us but there are plenty of examples of people starting from ordinary backgrounds and getting to the top of whatever tree they chose to climb. They're just more talented and driven than the rest of us.

Here's an example of a guy who left school with one O level and made it to Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff. Shows you where hard work, dedication and 7.5bn worth of inherited property can get you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Grosvenor,_6th_Duke_of_Westminster
cander - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Skyfall:

interesting - so how would the taxman know? The Belize company would be run by a nominee director (not being me) with the beneficiary being my wife, and the protector being me - none of which information is available to HMRC as its confidential in Belize . The southern Cyprus bank account (there is no company - it is in Belize) is covered by banking privacy rules such as used to exist in Switzerland and the account name would be a nominee with no access to the account - so the question remains how would HMRC find out?
brokenbanjo - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to wilding:

Bollocks.
I like climbing - on 16 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
You really haven't thought this one out, mate.
graeme jackson - on 16 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
Sounds to me like you've just been written out of your parents will and you want to exact some revenge on the rest of society.
Postmanpat on 16 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Kind of ironic to see a leftie promoting an updated version of feudalism whereby all property is ultimately in the ownership of the Crown and only held by subjects at the discretion of the Crown.
mike kann - on 16 Jan 2013
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> Apart from not being what our currently culture views as a morally virtuous way to live your life, why is it any more inherently pointless than locking it all away in saving and property to pass on to your kids?

Surely that is a rather major point though. For this to work you have to change the way society thinks. They tried in the soviet union, and it didn't work. Productivity took a nose dive, because there was no personal reward associated with working hard. At some point you have to accept that humans work mainly for personal gain. If satisfaction factors into it that's a bonus but I'd say at least 50% of people do jobs they don't particularly like and would rather do something else. So taking that as a given its not so much that its pointless from societies perspective, but pointless from the individuals perspective. The whole thing revolves around society becoming a benevolent force, which living in the real world, it's very very unlike to become any time soon.
Ramblin dave - on 16 Jan 2013
In reply to mike kann:
> (In reply to Ramblin dave)
>
> [...]
>
> Surely that is a rather major point though. For this to work you have to change the way society thinks. They tried in the soviet union, and it didn't work. Productivity took a nose dive, because there was no personal reward associated with working hard. At some point you have to accept that humans work mainly for personal gain. If satisfaction factors into it that's a bonus but I'd say at least 50% of people do jobs they don't particularly like and would rather do something else.

But sticking in a 100% death tax doesn't remove any of that. It doesn't abolish all forms of private property or anything, it just removes one particular way that you're going to be rewarded for your hard work - the ability to make your kids suddenly more wealthy at (hopefully) a comparatively late stage in their own lives.

mike kann - on 16 Jan 2013
In reply to Ramblin dave: So all that would happen is that people would give their assets to their children earlier in their life. Anything else would go to the state. To me this sounds exactly like what we already do only you'd just see the inheritance given away early. Or are you going to ban giving away your own money?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.