The Student Room Group

Why not fund the welfare state with a 100% inheritance tax?

Why not scrap the welfare state completely and let everyone take care of themselves?
The uber-rich will continue to use their inheritance tax avoidance schemes, allowing them to avoid this crazy 100% tax?

If that's the case, then only the rich will be able to pass on their estate to their kids and not the middle class. Will this not drive inequality further?

What's wrong with a parent wanting to look after their children when they pass away by letting them inherit their estate?
(edited 6 years ago)
Reply 3
****ing guardian goes full communist.

- In many cases you would be basically taking houses away from people, which in many cases they couldn't buy back, and then giving them social housing.

-poverty would increase, private wealth would be reduced, after some time everyone would be poor and living on welfare. An ever bigger welfare state would be needed.

- less money in private hands, less safety net and financial security means less consumption

-the welfare state would become huge

-the state would need to sell all kinds of assets, which isn't simple. Even with houses, since they aren't all fit for social housing, selling millions would disrupt the market.

- You are not protecting the state of fact and private propriety if you take away an asset that for years has belonged to a family and has been used and "possessed" by all the members
(edited 6 years ago)
Any intelligent person with an estate would simply put their assets into a trust, thus avoiding the tax.

This benefits nobody in reality.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 5
Original post by Meany Pie
Any intelligent person with an estate would simply put their assets into a trust, thus avoiding the tax.

This benefits nobody in reality.

Posted from TSR Mobile

It's highly theoretical, they could make that illegal too.

But it would still be possible to use such schemes abroad with other laws.
Original post by Meany Pie
Any intelligent person with an estate would simply put their assets into a trust, thus avoiding the tax.

This benefits nobody in reality.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Original post by usualsuspects
It's highly theoretical, they could make that illegal too.

But it would still be possible to use such schemes abroad with other laws.


You really underestimate solicitors if you think the government could just make things like that illegal
Original post by usualsuspects
It's highly theoretical, they could make that illegal too.

But it would still be possible to use such schemes abroad with other laws.


That's true, especially non extradition countries.

Original post by Underscore__
You really underestimate solicitors if you think the government could just make things like that illegal


It is obviously hypothetical.

Posted from TSR Mobile
We are taxed for having a roof above our heads, for working, for buying stuff, for having a car and drive it (by the mile too), we are taxed for having a telly and watch it, for buying insurance on anything, for flying, for using gas and leccy for light and warmth, for saving up for retirement, for dying. Every practical form of taxation is already there, quite often under the plain threat of imprisonment. Even our organs are up for discussion now, if the State could fit everyone with a meter for walking and breathing...

We pay too much attention to these airy-fairy dissertations, she looks fairly young and the day she has kids or develops some understanding of ideals like personal freedoms and rights she may well change her tune. Of course, if the State just took everything we own at the end we might as well just go out, burn the lot and then put our name down for housing and benefits like everybody else.
Because we live in a democracy and inheritance tax is electoral cyanide.

Next question?
Original post by Meany Pie
It is obviously hypothetical.

Posted from TSR Mobile


So I'm free to suggest impossible solutions to a perceived problem so long as it's hypothetical?
Why wait until a person dies? A true socialist would advocate confiscation during the life of the wealth's owner, either by simple confiscation, as happened in soviet Russia, or by punitive taxation, as happens under socialist governments all the time.
Why even have an inheritance tax in the first place when people have worked hard and succeeded in order to accumulate such a high level of wealth?
As a care leaver studying A levels full time, I can't provide for myself and am dependent on the welfare state for help until I can get to university and get a job. Hopefully as an engineer it'll have been within the tax payers' interest to support me as my parents are not there to help me.
Because it would encourage people to spend their money frivously in life so that their wealth isn't taken from their family when they die, or so I heard in one video I watched a while back
Original post by Good bloke
Why wait until a person dies? A true socialist would advocate confiscation during the life of the wealth's owner, either by simple confiscation, as happened in soviet Russia, or by punitive taxation, as happens under socialist governments all the time.


Hope that does not affect Britain's proposed union with Russia and Czech Republic in a few years time. I'm sure Mr Putin will do the right thing for our AngloRussianCzech union.
Somewhat interesting idea, probably isn't that great tho. If you live with your parents in their house and they suddenly die then you're immediately made homeless because inheritance doesn't happen. Not ideal.
Original post by Blue_Cow
The uber-rich will continue to use their inheritance tax avoidance schemes, allowing them to avoid this crazy 100% tax?

If that's the case, then only the rich will be able to pass on their estate to their kids and not the middle class. Will this not drive inequality further?


Wouldn't it be that to avoid being caught dodging it would be near impossible, as it's effectively the same as making inheriting literally anything completely illegal?

Original post by Ambitious1999
Hope that does not affect Britain's proposed union with Russia and Czech Republic in a few years time. I'm sure Mr Putin will do the right thing for our AngloRussianCzech union.


Dude what are you drinking?

Original post by Underscore__
So I'm free to suggest impossible solutions to a perceived problem so long as it's hypothetical?

Sure, why not?
Original post by Retired_Messiah
Sure, why not?


Because it serves no purpose. If you suggest a ridiculous hypothetical solution to a non existent problem I'll call it ridiculous

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending