Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B993 – Politics of Jealousy (Rectification) Bill 2016 Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye the inheritance tax is a vile system and its unfair Inheritants should not pay any tax on the acquirement of property, money
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    As you say, taxation pays for the means of producing income - said like a true social democrat. And income tax takes a proportion of people's earned income to go towards this. Inheritance tax however takes from unearned income. It boils down to whether you see it as a tax on the inheritor or not. I see it as a tax on the inheritor.
    Okay, but using this approach, you can justify practically any tax. The only reason we have multiple taxes is so that simpletons don't realise how much of the true cost of their work (cost to the company) is being siphoned away because the government need to finance war (ahem, I'm mainly looking at you, Murricans), give huge bailouts to rescue the private financial sector and other countries (ahem, the EU), send billions around the world as ineffective humanitarian aid instead of taking care of their own citizens first, etc. rather than allowing people to use their earnings to make their own investments.

    Do you have a moral justification for taking a share of what the owner decides to give to someone else, which is what inheritance is? Yes, he may not be required to work for it and it may be ‘unearned income’ (though one could argue that things like taking care of the dear departed family member throughout his life make it earned, and the state plays no role in that), but all those earnings have previously been taxed so why the heck should he pay once again?

    Moreover, one can already avoid inheritance tax in a number of ways so it's ineffective and I believe it also feeds a plethora of nasty parasites like lawyers, property valuation agents, clerks, etc. who otherwise wouldn't be necessary.

    The only reason why lefties support it is that it takes from the rich a lot more than it takes from the middle class and below and they can't stand their kids having a head start.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The bill title is puerile, and the first paragraph is poorly written.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Okay, but using this approach, you can justify practically any tax. The only reason we have multiple taxes is so that simpletons don't realise how much of the true cost of their work (cost to the company) is being siphoned away because the government need to finance war (ahem, I'm mainly looking at you, Murricans), give huge bailouts to rescue the private financial sector and other countries (ahem, the EU), send billions around the world as ineffective humanitarian aid instead of taking care of their own citizens first, etc. rather than allowing people to use their earnings to make their own investments.

    Do you have a moral justification for taking a share of what the owner decides to give to someone else, which is what inheritance is? Yes, he may not be required to work for it and it may be ‘unearned income’ (though one could argue that things like taking care of the dear departed family member throughout his life make it earned, and the state plays no role in that), but all those earnings have previously been taxed so why the heck should he pay once again?

    Moreover, one can already avoid inheritance tax in a number of ways so it's ineffective and I believe it also feeds a plethora of nasty parasites like lawyers, property valuation agents, clerks, etc. who otherwise wouldn't be necessary.

    The only reason why lefties support it is that it takes from the rich a lot more than it takes from the middle class and below and they can't stand their kids having a head start.
    Regardless of whether or not you can use it to justify any tax, my point is only that inheritance is a much more justifiable tax than others. That's why, despite not wishing to lower income tax myself, I find the opinion of those who do wish to do so very respectable. I don't see what's respectable about your position here.

    Equality of opportunity is a bad thing to you? I don't see why some people deserve a massive head start simply because of who their parents are? And note that I'm not advocating an extremist position like a 100% inheritance tax, simply that we shouldn't abolish inheritance tax altogether.

    I don't think that the fact that there are ways to get around a tax justify abolishing the tax altogether. Nor do I think that putting people - such as lawyers and clerks - out of a job is a good justification.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Regardless of whether or not you can use it to justify any tax, my point is only that inheritance is a much more justifiable tax than others. That's why, despite not wishing to lower income tax myself, I find the opinion of those who do wish to do so very respectable. I don't see what's respectable about your position here.

    Equality of opportunity is a bad thing to you? I don't see why some people deserve a massive head start simply because of who their parents are? And note that I'm not advocating an extremist position like a 100% inheritance tax, simply that we shouldn't abolish inheritance tax altogether.

    I don't think that the fact that there are ways to get around a tax justify abolishing the tax altogether. Nor do I think that putting people - such as lawyers and clerks - out of a job is a good justification.
    If equality of opportunity is such a massive deal you should be advocating significant changes though, both to rate and allowances, rather than simply saying it shouldn't be abolished

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If equality of opportunity is such a massive deal you should be advocating significant changes though, both to rate and allowances, rather than simply saying it shouldn't be abolished

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm happy to begin a debate on what sort of reforms there should be both within my party and then in the wider House. In the meantime I'll be voting against this bill.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Lol no. 100% inheritance tax, now that's an idea.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Regardless of whether or not you can use it to justify any tax, my point is only that inheritance is a much more justifiable tax than others. That's why, despite not wishing to lower income tax myself, I find the opinion of those who do wish to do so very respectable. I don't see what's respectable about your position here.

    Equality of opportunity is a bad thing to you? I don't see why some people deserve a massive head start simply because of who their parents are? And note that I'm not advocating an extremist position like a 100% inheritance tax, simply that we shouldn't abolish inheritance tax altogether.

    I don't think that the fact that there are ways to get around a tax justify abolishing the tax altogether. Nor do I think that putting people - such as lawyers and clerks - out of a job is a good justification.
    You said it's a “tax on the inheritor” but the inheritance has already been taxed (e.g. when it was earned by the person who left it) and the inheritor used none of state infrastructure to get it so there is no moral or legal justification. Instead, it's a means of increasing the taxes that have already been imposed without making it clear.

    Again, equality of opportunity is good when dealing with state infrastructure such as public schools—even if you're ****ing poor but smart, you can get top education. It sure as heck doesn't apply to families! If I'm rich and I have a child, why should it be limited by the mean? This is the same kind of twisted logic that has been suppressing children's intellectual abilities. When they are not allowed to surpass their peers even though they have much greater potential, everyone loses. Equally, socialists would rather see everyone as poor as them than let people who are better off enjoy their wealth.

    As for the third paragraph, those people aren't creating any value and just feeding off someone else's misery and misfortune. I don't want to support that, which is why we need a simple system to get rid of as much bureaucracy and formality as possible, even if it means projecting this tax into something else so that we can pledge billions to support US ‘peacekeeping’ and ‘democracy’ crusades.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Lol

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    You said it's a “tax on the inheritor” but the inheritance has already been taxed (e.g. when it was earned by the person who left it) and the inheritor used none of state infrastructure to get it so there is no moral or legal justification. Instead, it's a means of increasing the taxes that have already been imposed without making it clear.

    Again, equality of opportunity is good when dealing with state infrastructure such as public schools—even if you're ****ing poor but smart, you can get top education. It sure as heck doesn't apply to families! If I'm rich and I have a child, why should it be limited by the mean? This is the same kind of twisted logic that has been suppressing children's intellectual abilities. When they are not allowed to surpass their peers even though they have much greater potential, everyone loses. Equally, socialists would rather see everyone as poor as them than let people who are better off enjoy their wealth.

    As for the third paragraph, those people aren't creating any value and just feeding off someone else's misery and misfortune. I don't want to support that, which is why we need a simple system to get rid of as much bureaucracy and formality as possible, even if it means projecting this tax into something else so that we can pledge billions to support US ‘peacekeeping’ and ‘democracy’ crusades.
    It was taxed, now it's being taxed again. :confused: Wealth left by the dead is thus, in part, redistributed. The inheritor gets out more than they put in, and so this is corrected by the tax for the betterment of society - there's the simplistic moral justification.

    Supporting inheritance tax doesn't mean I support everyone being poor - how absurd. But if taxation must occur then I think the claim to one's inheritance is weaker than the claim to one's direct earnings.

    This has nothing to do with suppressing children's intellectual capabilities. Bring on the social mobility. Bring on the 'aspiration'.

    If you think that taxes collected are being frivolously spent then you, as the head of government, should look to allocating those resources more effectively.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It was taxed, now it's being taxed again. :confused: Wealth left by the dead is thus, in part, redistributed. The inheritor gets out more than they put in, and so this is corrected by the tax for the betterment of society - there's the simplistic moral justification.

    Supporting inheritance tax doesn't mean I support everyone being poor - how absurd. But if taxation must occur then I think the claim to one's inheritance is weaker than the claim to one's direct earnings.

    This has nothing to do with suppressing children's intellectual capabilities. Bring on the social mobility. Bring on the 'aspiration'.

    If you think that taxes collected are being frivolously spent then you, as the head of government, should look to allocating those resources more effectively.
    Implying the moral imperative of the creator is to prop up the moocher.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Implying the moral imperative of the creator is to prop up the moocher.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Implying that society creates and everyone has a responsibility to society and society is responsible for everyone.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Implying that society creates and everyone has a responsibility to society and society is responsible for everyone.
    Society doesn't create a thing, people do. A society of moochers is a society, but none the less produces nothing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Society doesn't create a thing, people do. A society of moochers is a society, but none the less produces nothing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Society is people.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Society is people.
    But it is the people themselves that create

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But it is the people themselves that create

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    People create collectively.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    People create collectively.
    Funnily enough, they can singularly too.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Funnily enough, they can singularly too.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No man is an island, entire of itself.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    No man is an island, entire of itself.
    Tell that to somebody stranded

    Creators can exist without society, society cannot exist without creators.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 19, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.