Is inheritance tax fair?

Or, people don't want to see the inheritance theyve worked their arses off for for their children taxed at 40% becuase they're dead.

It's a stupid law with absolutely no logical reasoning behind it. It is simply a tax for dying.

Usually whenever someone moans about inheritence tax it's under the guise of how it's unfair to "pay tax twice", even though you're already taxed twice via income tax then VAT, yet no one bitches about this... not that being "taxed twice" is even a valid argument anyway, money is taxed multiple times as it works it's way through the economy. Another one is how it's robbery from the dead. I mean that second one is just laughable really... they are dead, it doesn't ****ing matter anymore and really it's the living recipients who are being taxed on income they haven't worked for.

You'd think that the general public, who claim to want a fairer society, would support a policy that taxes large amounts of unearned income of the recipients at what should be at a higher rate than income tax, which was money that was actually worked for.

The truth is, it comes down to the very self-servience that people bitch and moan about politicians for. People want their children to gain large amounts of money unearned by these children, or people want to receive large amounts of money unearned by them from their parents.

Before any losers with nothing interesting to say post to tell me I'm just jealous:

1. Being jealous wouldn't invalidate my points.
2. I stand to inherit this unearned money in the future, so no, not really.

Why shouldn't these children work for their own money? What a ****ing joke. The only scroungers here are people who want IHT abolished.

Why should income tax be higher than IHT as it currently is?

Why shouldn't these children work for their own money? What a ****ing joke. The only scroungers here are people who want IHT abolished.

Why should income tax be higher than IHT as it currently is?

so you're essentially saying that either a person must transfer the money before they die, or the government should own everything they ever earned, because they can't simply write a list of transfers when that time comes? that's incredibly unreasonable. the people who die don't work because they want to give money to the government. they work (later in life at least) to leave their family money. and it's not a matter of "worked for" - it's a matter of "earned". if my father, for example (I'm not rich, before you ask) "earns" money legitimately, and then wants to give it to me, why is that illegitimate? and why doesn't his will matter if that money is attached to that will which was formulated when he was alive? the execution of that will isn't done by him - it's done by another agent.

again, it's not a matter of "worked" - pop stars don't exactly "work" hard but they sure"earn" a lot. that's why they get to keep it. also, the general public aren't entitled to other people's money morally speaking. just because they vote, it doesn't suddenly moralise that theft. and yes, it is theft if it is essentially "stealing" with a government - governments can steal money, can't they? is there nothing the government can't steal without calling it "taxes"? if they make a law saying they can have your television, why can't that be taken as well? it's the government, right? but what makes it "not theft" conceptually and coherently?

how do you measure "work"? why aren't you more concerned with "value"? or "consent"? or "earn" (again)? the value of money isn't objective, but it is a matter of consent. if a person gives somebody £100 for 1 hour of work, they gave it because the work was more valuable to them than their £100, or else they wouldn't have traded that money for it. "work" is too subjective to be bringing up because it is very narrow in its conception - a manual labourer, for example, "works", and a pop star "works" in a less visible way, but it is still acceptable to call it "work" because they are satisfying people's desires, which is how they are getting income. satisfying desire = earn. work = "?" realistically

I'm not accusing anybody of jealousy - I'm merely saying that it is not legitimate to think of money in such non-personal ways - if you write a will while you are alive, that is a plan of command that takes affect at the time of your death. it isn't a matter of writing a contract when you're a lifeless corpse. if you sign it to mean "when I die", while you're still alive, that means something. it's like saying "I am going to write a contract, and it is going to take place in 4 years time" and then saying to that person "you're not the same person 4 years later technically and your opinions have changed - therefore that contract shouldn't be upheld" - contracts are written regardless of a change of circumstances. they are written as if those changes of circumstances do not matter. contracts aren't frustrated with different future mindsets.

again, if your parents love you, why shouldn't they have the right to give their "earned" money to you? does the government "earn" that money instead of your parents? do your parents' wills not matter regarding what is their own money?

What's to say those children don't work for their money?! My parents were Piss poor when they grew up. They worked damn hard and now provide a (very) decent living for themselves. They worked hard to provide a good inheritance for their children.

Now, all of their children are professionals in their own respective industries. You have previously posted asking about leave entitlements during internships, so I guess your about 19 or 20. So excuse me if I don't particularly get too bothered about what someone your age thinks counts as "hard work" lol.

put it this way. If your parents worked themselves to death only to see everything they worked for nearly get halved upon their death, how fair do you think that would be?

Furthermore, why the hell is it the governments (or anyone else's for that matter) business how much money a parent leaves to their child.

If my parents leave me income that is taxed, then in a totally fair society, your parents should be taxed too.

He can do what he wants with his money, I'm just asking for it to be taxed at least as much as income tax is as the money is handed to the recipient.

Playing semantics, how sad. Earned, worked for, paid, made... who cares what you call it... said person put "work" in the economic sense in, and got money out. And no, assuming the government in place has the backing of the majority of the electorate, no taxes is theft.

See above.

See my first answer.

Money needs to be taxed whether you like it or not, unless you want to move to a remote island, or Somalia.

I'd ask you to keep in mind that over several generations, without an inheritance tax... wealth trickles upwards into the hands of a few.

How on Earth does your parents having worked hard mean you have worked hard? Wtf.



Because by remaining in the country, you've agreed to abide to the laws made by said country... by a government who was elected by said country. Your argument is stupid, you may as well have said "I AIN'T PAYING NO TAXES, WHY SHOULD I, IT'S MINE."

Yes. Where have I said otherwise? Comments like this is how you know the anti-IHT camp are full of a bunch of selfish whiners.

As I said. You're probably some 19 yr old kid who's never worked a day in his life. And by worked, I don't mean down mc Donald's.

And what I meant was, how exactly is it fair for the government to tax parents savings that are meant for their children.

You'd understand this if you had children

why should a contract be taxed as opposed to income? a transfer of wealth isn't an income



1) work =/= earn. earn is to come to possess something through somebody else in a manner which is just. you can work all you like, it doesn't mean you'll get anything from it. money should be earned. nothing is *necessarily* worked for, because work =/= value
2) so if a crowd of people wnated to rob me, their majority-existence over me legitimises their stealing? theft has a definition not dependent upon the agent.



wow.



again, wow.

not objectively. you're being very narrow minded. I'm not an anarchist, but I don't honestly suggest that taxation is inherently just. even if taxation is necessary in a situation, that doesn't make it immoral or illegitimate - you can have rationally, and subjectively, necessary situations, which call for technically immoral actions. for example, if I was starving on a desert island, and the only thing I can do is eat another person as food, or die myself, we can either both starve, or I can be immoral and survive reasonably for my priority of pleasure/pain over morality, through his death/meat when he isn't technically my property or somebody that owes me themselves. morality =/= reasonability when we're talking about pleasure and pain, and moeality isn't based all around pleasure/pain.

so what? how is that illegitimate? if it is earned, then you are saying that they didn't have a right to make trades with people, which is essentially saying that capitalism isn't legitimate in any situation if one person makes a monetary profit, as opposed to a "happiness profit". why is a trickle down of money the only thing that's immoral? you're only measuring value in money, which, again, is extremely narrow.

Again, playing semantics isn't very helpful.

If you don't like what the electorate vote for, you're free to try and start an opposition... or just leave the country.

Again, the electorate votes for some form of government, to take some form of taxes. Move to libertarian heaven Somalia if you don't like it.

This is just so unbelievable, I'm almost lost for words. So you'd be okay moving back to a Victorian style society then?

Yes, However only in instances of extreme wealth. I'm talking about in the billions. That amount of wealth is more about influence than privilege. The problem is that the billionaires who don't elect to give away half their wealth are in a position to establish a self-perpetuating family legacy of wealth and power. They are in no way elected into their position, they inherit it. That is a dangerous situation. Wealth in excess of one billion should be halved during the probate. Anything below one billion should not be taxed at all.

unless they plege it mostly to charity such as buffet and gates have done so not deductions on charitable donations

For example in France it kicks in around at 134k gbp per child

Whereas in the UK it's on it's way to one million.

Should inheritance tax exist?

And if so at what point?

Move to France then.

Or propose that a post on TSR tax is introduced.

Inheritance tax makes me so angry

It really should exist.

You have the elderly who are literally wasting their money on sh*t just so they don't have to give huge amounts away to the government, they should have the freedom to do what they want and when they want. My grandparents never wanted the renovations that have been done, all the new cars that have been bought or the holidays they've been on. They just want to sit on the money until they pop their clogs - simple as that.

I'm confused about whether you're in favour of it or not...

When did i ever say i agreed with France?