The Student Room Group

~| Is Inheritance Tax Immoral? |~

In my view it is. For the state to confiscate the wealth of those who wish to pass it on to their children as a matter of principle is the desecration of the time-honoured custom of ruthlessly protecting your family heritage over the generations. It is nothing short of legalised theft, and the most sordid and horrific tax that could ever have been thought up. It can only be brought down with mass non-payment. It is the duty, the responsibility, of all who can avoid paying this horrible tax not to do so!

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Completely and wholeheartedly agree. Inheritance tax is an abomination - in fact, I'd go as far as saying it was an abuse of power from the government. Especially for low-income families who are forced with having to shell out for funerals etc.
Reply 2
I'm guessing the above posters will personlly benefit if it were to be abolished...
Original post by The Dictator
the desecration of the time-honoured custom of ruthlessly protecting your family heritage over the generations


Sarcasm detector bleeping?

I think inheritance tax is very moral. I think landed wealth is one of the worst things. Why should your starting position in life be so affected by what your ancestors have done (or inherited themselves)?

Inheritance tax fight against inequality that inevitably builds up over generations (well, most tax does, but inheritances can be huge). Some will always view tax as theft. But if you agree that taxation occurs when money changes hands, why should it be any different when you're talking about down the generations?

Some money should be transferred between generations, but I think the tax should be much more progressive i.e. clobber the very rich.
Reply 4
Original post by Mackay
Completely and wholeheartedly agree. Inheritance tax is an abomination - in fact, I'd go as far as saying it was an abuse of power from the government. Especially for low-income families who are forced with having to shell out for funerals etc.


If your a low income family, your certainly not subject to inheritance tax
Reply 5
Original post by The Dictator
In my view it is. For the state to confiscate the wealth of those who wish to pass it on to their children as a matter of principle is the desecration of the time-honoured custom of ruthlessly protecting your family heritage over the generations. It is nothing short of legalised theft, and the most sordid and horrific tax that could ever have been thought up. It can only be brought down with mass non-payment. It is the duty, the responsibility, of all who can avoid paying this horrible tax not to do so!


Its something that conflicts me.

On the one hand I believe in individual liberty so I don't see why the state should tell me I can't give my children all my money without being bent over for it but at the same time I do believe in meritocracy and even if the parents earnt the money, just as the son is not responsible for the sins of the father, neither should he really gain from the fathers success.

Even pragmatically I'm conflicted. While the economic argument for inheritance taxes could be made simply as those inheriting (given the high threshold) likely having a propensity to save and therefore the economic damage is likely to minimal. At the same time, the fact that private healthcare and education ECT.. Are vastly superior to their state counterparts, could be used as an argument to support full inheritance on the basis that the individual may put that money to much better use than the state, they will not necessarily spend it on meaningless things or save the cash.
Just another way of robbing the people.
Original post by Rakas21
If your a low income family, your certainly not subject to inheritance tax


Inheritance tax is related to assets not income, although your point still stands. Most low income families won't inherit huge assets.

It always annoys me when some mega-rich family moans about inheritance tax. "Oh, we had to sell of the family silver to pay the tax bill" or "we can't maintain the cost of running this massive great estate in the country, we'll have to sell it to pay the tax and pocket the remaining millions".

My heart bleeds.
Original post by Rakas21
Its something that conflicts me.

On the one hand I believe in individual liberty so I don't see why the state should tell me I can't give my children all my money without being bent over for it but at the same time I do believe in meritocracy and even if the parents earnt the money, just as the son is not responsible for the sins of the father, neither should he really gain from the fathers success.

Even pragmatically I'm conflicted. While the economic argument for inheritance taxes could be made simply as those inheriting (given the high threshold) likely having a propensity to save and therefore the economic damage is likely to minimal. At the same time, the fact that private healthcare and education ECT.. Are vastly superior to their state counterparts, could be used as an argument to support full inheritance on the basis that the individual may put that money to much better use than the state, they will not necessarily spend it on meaningless things or save the cash.


Inheritance Tax is an appeasement tax. It appeases poor people. It's a trade off between wealthy people obtaining their wealth by immoral means and poor people being unhappy about it.

People shouldn't have so much to inherit in the first place. However, the OP believes that people that are rich deserve to be rich. They earned their wealth therefore they deserve to keep it all. But the wealth they earned is obtained via dubious means.

lol at the end of the day. The OP and the people that agree with him believe it is normal (and ok) to obtain wealth by any means and once you obtain such wealth (and the power that comes with it), you can pass it on and allow their spawn to benefit from their exploits.

In conclusion, Inheritance tax shouldn't exist nor should exorbitant wealth.
But don't we usually tax when money changes hands?

Why should it be different upon death?
Original post by chazwomaq
But don't we usually tax when money changes hands?

Why should it be different upon death?

Good point, people shouldn't think of it as an inheritance tax, rather think of it as another form of income tax, but really the threshold should be set lower if they're going to have it, after all, it's just another thing that penalises a relatively small number.
Reply 11
Original post by chazwomaq
Inheritance tax is related to assets not income, although your point still stands. Most low income families won't inherit huge assets.

It always annoys me when some mega-rich family moans about inheritance tax. "Oh, we had to sell of the family silver to pay the tax bill" or "we can't maintain the cost of running this massive great estate in the country, we'll have to sell it to pay the tax and pocket the remaining millions".

My heart bleeds.


Except that it's not usually those people complaining. In the next decade or so, it will be large numbers of people who owned houses or almost any size or value.

If your parents live in London and die - it is very likely that you won't be able to service the inheritance tax liability. In short - you will have to sell it because you can't afford to inherit your family home.
Reply 12
Original post by Jammy Duel
Good point, people shouldn't think of it as an inheritance tax, rather think of it as another form of income tax, but really the threshold should be set lower if they're going to have it, after all, it's just another thing that penalises a relatively small number.


Uh no. It's £325k.

So if your parents own a semi-detached house in the suburbs worth say £450k, you will have to stump up £50,000 to inherit your childhood home.

In many parts of London and the South East, homes owned by relatively low-income earning Babyboomers can easily be worth £500k+, levels at which their children will be unable to get mortgages to pay the Inheritance Tax.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 13
Original post by Rakas21
Its something that conflicts me.

On the one hand I believe in individual liberty so I don't see why the state should tell me I can't give my children all my money without being bent over for it but at the same time I do believe in meritocracy and even if the parents earnt the money, just as the son is not responsible for the sins of the father, neither should he really gain from the fathers success.

Even pragmatically I'm conflicted. While the economic argument for inheritance taxes could be made simply as those inheriting (given the high threshold) likely having a propensity to save and therefore the economic damage is likely to minimal. At the same time, the fact that private healthcare and education ECT.. Are vastly superior to their state counterparts, could be used as an argument to support full inheritance on the basis that the individual may put that money to much better use than the state, they will not necessarily spend it on meaningless things or save the cash.


I am personally disappointed that you subscribe to this kind of view. It's completely anti-property.

It's clear that any kind of "everyone should start at zero" type philosophy is absurdly flawed at every single level. Property is one of the cornerstones of civilisation. Consider a closed society (where you can't emigrate), what would happen if Inheritance Tax were set very high (and trusts etc were made inoperable)? People would go on absurd spending binges before their deaths. No one would own anything of value.

What would happen if parents died relatively young? Why not tax life insurance payouts to make sure children don't benefit from being enriched by being orphaned? There's no philosophical reason against once you go down the anti-property route.
Original post by Clip
Uh no. It's £325k.

So if your parents own a semi-detached house in the suburbs worth say £450k, you will have to stump up £50,000 to inherit your childhood home.

In many parts of London and the South East, homes owned by relatively low-income earning Babyboomers can easily be worth £500k+, levels at which their children will be unable to get mortgages to pay the Inheritance Tax.

If the poor OWN 500k+ houses in the south east then how is the average in the region only 326k?
And unless I'm missing something it's not something that only effects the poor. You would be hard pushed to say that either myself, or the rest of my family, is poor, but if my parents were to die right now how would I go about paying the tax? I don't think the cash assets are quite enough to cover it, although I might be mistaken there. Well, the solution is the same as that for the poor:
You can pay in yearly instalments over 10 years if the value of the estate is tied up in property such as a house.
Reply 15
Original post by Jammy Duel
If the poor OWN 500k+ houses in the south east then how is the average in the region only 326k?


Why do you think? Because that's an average, obviously. Including studio flats and 1-bedders. A low income family in North London where the owners are in their 60s could very easily own a house worth more than £500k - a 3 or 4 bed house bought in the 1970s.


I don't think the cash assets are quite enough to cover it, although I might be mistaken there. Well, the solution is the same as that for the poor


Why would installments be any more affordable? If your parents earned very little, and you don't earn very much, £50,000 to own the home your family already owned seems like a lot of money even spread over 10 years,,
Original post by Clip
I am personally disappointed that you subscribe to this kind of view. It's completely anti-property.

It's clear that any kind of "everyone should start at zero" type philosophy is absurdly flawed at every single level. Property is one of the cornerstones of civilisation. Consider a closed society (where you can't emigrate), what would happen if Inheritance Tax were set very high (and trusts etc were made inoperable)? People would go on absurd spending binges before their deaths. No one would own anything of value.

What would happen if parents died relatively young? Why not tax life insurance payouts to make sure children don't benefit from being enriched by being orphaned? There's no philosophical reason against once you go down the anti-property route.


That's taking it a bit too far, i consider private property rights to be probably the most important thing in a functional market economy. And i'm certainly not supportive of a high rate.

I'm simply undecided as to whether i support its abolition or a moderate inheritance tax.
Original post by Clip
Why would installments be any more affordable? If your parents earned very little, and you don't earn very much, £50,000 to own the home your family already owned seems like a lot of money even spread over 10 years,,

I'm worried if you don't see how doing it as installments makes it more affordable...
Taking the £50,000 example, what you end up doing is instead of having to find 50k for an up front payment you need to be able to produce 5k per year (presumably with inflation as necessary) which is inherently more affordable. The only example I can think of off the top of my head whereby you wouldn't be able to afford it up front would be if you're renting a property, since if you actually owned one whether it be with a mortgage or not you could theoretically sell a property (since you would have at least two) and Bob's your uncle you have the cash. Now, if you've inherited this property and you're currently renting and you aren't selling that property you rather trivially have somewhere to live, as you have this place to live you have no need to rent the property you were in before and not paying that rent can not unreasonably contribute to a substantial chunk of that 5k p/a. It is trivially more affordable.
Reply 18
Original post by Clip
Except that it's not usually those people complaining. In the next decade or so, it will be large numbers of people who owned houses or almost any size or value.

If your parents live in London and die - it is very likely that you won't be able to service the inheritance tax liability. In short - you will have to sell it because you can't afford to inherit your family home.


Your family's home?

If it were your family home, you'd have your name on the title deed.

Top tip, be part of the 90% of people who don't live in London. Of the 10% how many people in London own their home? :s-smilie:
Reply 19
Original post by Clip
I am personally disappointed that you subscribe to this kind of view. It's completely anti-property.

It's clear that any kind of "everyone should start at zero" type philosophy is absurdly flawed at every single level. Property is one of the cornerstones of civilisation. Consider a closed society (where you can't emigrate), what would happen if Inheritance Tax were set very high (and trusts etc were made inoperable)? People would go on absurd spending binges before their deaths. No one would own anything of value.

What would happen if parents died relatively young? Why not tax life insurance payouts to make sure children don't benefit from being enriched by being orphaned? There's no philosophical reason against once you go down the anti-property route.


Errrrrr thats included int he estate....

Its not 'veryone starts at zero. Estates are taxed at 40% on value above £325k - ie over 10x the UK average gross wage. Since regular earnings are taxed at 32% for a basic rate taxpayer I don't really see how its so unfair you get a massive amount tax free.

Quick Reply

Latest