Should Inheritance Be Banned?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Flying Flowers
I did not reply to the OP, can you not read you moron ? Did you not take English as a GCSE ?
Well you must have clicked the relpy button, so you were replying. Can you not read?
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Wattsy
Work hard all your life for a good life for your family, then wham, they have no savings anymore. That is principally wrong, it's stealing the benefits of hard work from a worthy family to put into government coffers... NO, especially to make the poor less poor, socialism is a demotivator.
I'm sorry, but this is really stupid. Income tax takes money from hard-workers. Inheritance tax takes money from the lucky. One taxes achievement, the other taxes ascription. Meritocracy, aristocracy. Take your pick.
I think people are giving the OP a rough time, since he's made it clear that banning inheritance is probably impossible in practice.
In principle though, shouldn't part of government's role to be to level the playing field, allowing whatever meritocratic values societies holds as important to emerge naturally, through fair competition. Inheritance, however, allows certain people wildly outrageous starting advantages which, since advantages multiply over time rather than diminish, allows a cycle of dominance which is difficult to break.
Put it this way: if I said in Monopoly, some people get to start with £2000, but others only get £50, you'd say that's unfair; yet that's exactly what happens in life, no?
In principle though, shouldn't part of government's role to be to level the playing field, allowing whatever meritocratic values societies holds as important to emerge naturally, through fair competition. Inheritance, however, allows certain people wildly outrageous starting advantages which, since advantages multiply over time rather than diminish, allows a cycle of dominance which is difficult to break.
Put it this way: if I said in Monopoly, some people get to start with £2000, but others only get £50, you'd say that's unfair; yet that's exactly what happens in life, no?
Your proposal disgusts me, and I am by no means rich so it would never affect me at all.
But why should the Government dictate whether people give money to their children or not? We should be free to give our money to whom ever we please upon death since it is our money, it belongs to us and us only. Would you be happy if I came along and told you that you had to give all of the money to me that you have worked hard for for your life? So why is the Government any different?
Besides, letting the government take it all away and doing what it wants with it is a bad thing. In practise, Government is a very poor allocator of resources, it would go on some bureaucratic Government program or just covering standard Government overheads. Its hardly what anyone would want happenning with their cash, and certainly wouldn't really help out anyone anyway.
Also some people don't give their money to their children. Some people give a very large chunk, or maybe all of it to chairty. Charity is by far a much better way of helping the poor and disadvantaged than Government programs. So your proposals would hurt charities substantially, and in turn negatively affect the lives of the most vulnerable.
But why should the Government dictate whether people give money to their children or not? We should be free to give our money to whom ever we please upon death since it is our money, it belongs to us and us only. Would you be happy if I came along and told you that you had to give all of the money to me that you have worked hard for for your life? So why is the Government any different?
Besides, letting the government take it all away and doing what it wants with it is a bad thing. In practise, Government is a very poor allocator of resources, it would go on some bureaucratic Government program or just covering standard Government overheads. Its hardly what anyone would want happenning with their cash, and certainly wouldn't really help out anyone anyway.
Also some people don't give their money to their children. Some people give a very large chunk, or maybe all of it to chairty. Charity is by far a much better way of helping the poor and disadvantaged than Government programs. So your proposals would hurt charities substantially, and in turn negatively affect the lives of the most vulnerable.
(edited 12 years ago)
I think it a very good idea in principle but in practice we all know that the funds raised by the government would not lead to a full retrieval of the capital due to be collected.
Say my Grandparents were to leave a home after they pass away, with this hypothetical 100% tax rate, the house would be worth £180,000 for talks sake but knowing that the house was for sale on the market by the government they would certainly not catch this price as consumers knowingly would try achieve a lower cost. Also selling at this lower cost would not be favourable for first time buyers but the market would certainly be saturated with property developers selling on the first time buyers as they could raise the funds needed quicker. The government would lose out where as a 50% tax would mean they walk away with £90,000 regardless of the houses fate.
I also believe that the government should not be coming up with non-regular tax opportunities such as this as they do not gain any benefit they simply pay back interest on loans taken from banks. Its unfortunate that we live in such a political system where we have very little say, because I don't know anyone that would have voted for the government that said lets use credit from banks to finance our hospitals. Increasing taxes is too late in the day. You need to cut spending, decrease borrowing, become borrow free, to get close to a clean slate or GO BANKRUPT!
Say my Grandparents were to leave a home after they pass away, with this hypothetical 100% tax rate, the house would be worth £180,000 for talks sake but knowing that the house was for sale on the market by the government they would certainly not catch this price as consumers knowingly would try achieve a lower cost. Also selling at this lower cost would not be favourable for first time buyers but the market would certainly be saturated with property developers selling on the first time buyers as they could raise the funds needed quicker. The government would lose out where as a 50% tax would mean they walk away with £90,000 regardless of the houses fate.
I also believe that the government should not be coming up with non-regular tax opportunities such as this as they do not gain any benefit they simply pay back interest on loans taken from banks. Its unfortunate that we live in such a political system where we have very little say, because I don't know anyone that would have voted for the government that said lets use credit from banks to finance our hospitals. Increasing taxes is too late in the day. You need to cut spending, decrease borrowing, become borrow free, to get close to a clean slate or GO BANKRUPT!
Original post by Dause
Scenario: I'm an underprivileged teenager and both my parents die in a car crash. As a result, my parents had no savings or valuable possessions to leave me. Therefore I am left utterly penniless and have to live on the streets.
Why should one orphan do better than the other simply because his/her parents were wealthy? What if the revenue from the inheritances was pooled and distributed evenly amongst these orphans? What if inheritance was permissible to an extent in the case of your parents deaths? There are a million and one ways around this.
Scenario: I'm an underprivileged teenager and both my parents die in a car crash. As a result, my parents had no savings or valuable possessions to leave me. Therefore I am left utterly penniless and have to live on the streets.
Why should one orphan do better than the other simply because his/her parents were wealthy? What if the revenue from the inheritances was pooled and distributed evenly amongst these orphans? What if inheritance was permissible to an extent in the case of your parents deaths? There are a million and one ways around this.
If inheritance was permissible in the case above then where does it stop? Surely it can't be right to say you can get it and you can't whatever the circumstances.
Original post by Dause
Why should one orphan do better than the other simply because his/her parents were wealthy?
Why should one orphan do better than the other simply because his/her parents were wealthy?
Because life isn't fair, that's why. Why shouldn't one orphan do better than the other simply because his/her parents were wealthy?
Otherwise you open up the territory of 'Why should one orphan do better than the other simply because his/her parents were British?' - which is just as unfair, a child in the Sudan whose parents died of AIDs didn't get a say in their place of birth. In which case one is morally obliged to provide care to all orphans in the world (if you care about fairness) - and this continues for every scenario ad infinitum until the British government is obliged to provide financial support for all 6/7 billion people on Earth.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Brevity
I think people are giving the OP a rough time, since he's made it clear that banning inheritance is probably impossible in practice.
In principle though, shouldn't part of government's role to be to level the playing field, allowing whatever meritocratic values societies holds as important to emerge naturally, through fair competition. Inheritance, however, allows certain people wildly outrageous starting advantages which, since advantages multiply over time rather than diminish, allows a cycle of dominance which is difficult to break.
Put it this way: if I said in Monopoly, some people get to start with £2000, but others only get £50, you'd say that's unfair; yet that's exactly what happens in life, no?
In principle though, shouldn't part of government's role to be to level the playing field, allowing whatever meritocratic values societies holds as important to emerge naturally, through fair competition. Inheritance, however, allows certain people wildly outrageous starting advantages which, since advantages multiply over time rather than diminish, allows a cycle of dominance which is difficult to break.
Put it this way: if I said in Monopoly, some people get to start with £2000, but others only get £50, you'd say that's unfair; yet that's exactly what happens in life, no?
Thank you, it's nice to see someone actually read past the title...
Not a single reply thus far has addressed the apparent conflict between inheritance and capitalism/meritocracy.
Original post by Brevity
Put it this way: if I said in Monopoly, some people get to start with £2000, but others only get £50, you'd say that's unfair; yet that's exactly what happens in life, no?
But in the case of life we have other people paying for our expenses until we are in a position where we can go out and make our own money. Our parents take care of us until we are old enough to earn our own cash. You don't get that in Monopoly!
In answer to the OP, no I don't think inheritance should be banned. I agree with a point mentioned previously - what motivation is left to earn money and save responsibly if the government will just take it all away when you die? Arguably it could encourage more spending but that's not going to help social mobility either. (Which I'm assuming is the overall 'plus' point of banning inheritance.)
Original post by Tefhel
Because life isn't fair, that's why. Why shouldn't one orphan do better than the other simply because his/her parents were wealthy?
Otherwise you open up the territory of 'Why should one orphan do better than the other simply because his/her parents were British?' - which is just as unfair, a child in the Sudan whose parents died of AIDs didn't get a say in their place of birth. In which case one is morally obliged to provide care to all orphans in the world (if you care about fairness) - and this continues for every scenario ad infinitum.
Otherwise you open up the territory of 'Why should one orphan do better than the other simply because his/her parents were British?' - which is just as unfair, a child in the Sudan whose parents died of AIDs didn't get a say in their place of birth. In which case one is morally obliged to provide care to all orphans in the world (if you care about fairness) - and this continues for every scenario ad infinitum.
The fact that life isn't fair doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to minimise it. Your (faulty) logic can be used to justify the execution of every 3rd newborn. The existence of other injustices does not excuse the presence of this one. If the cost of redressing the imbalance is less then the benefit of doing so, I believe it to be worthwhile.
Original post by Tefhel
Scenario: I'm a teenager and both my parents die in a car crash. As a result, my family home and all my possessions are seized by the government as I'm not allowed to inherit anything. Therefore I am left utterly penniless and have to live on the streets. Wow - what a great idea, I'm surprised such a law isn't already in place. /sarcasm
That could easily be avoided by allowing people to keep the amount of money they need to maintain their lifestyle. It is unfair that someone should suffer a financial loss because of the death of someone they are dependent on, but that is not a reason why it is undesirable to abolish inheritance as it exists now.
Original post by Dause
Why should one orphan do better than the other simply because his/her parents were wealthy?
Why draw the line after death? Why not take everyones money and distribute it equally among the population all the time? You said it yourself why should one person do better than the other simply because his/her parents are wealthy.
I personally see the idea of removing inheritance as flawed.
Original post by SirMasterKey
Well if you earn the money over your life time surely you should have the say in where that money goes.
I should probably respond to this, as it is being repeated an awful lot.
To say that inheritance is justified because people have a 'right' to dictate where it goes is clearly begging the question. A number of qualifications are already inherent in this 'right', such as income tax. The question at hand is whether banning inheritance should be another such qualification.
If such a thing was put in place do you know what I'd do? Spend the lot. I'd make sure the government didn't get a penny of what I've already paid an extortionate amount of tax on to satisfy people like you. I'd gift as much as I could to my children, and what I could not would be spent. What have you gained?
Original post by Dause
The fact that life isn't fair doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to minimise it. Your (faulty) logic can be used to justify the execution of every 3rd newborn. The existence of other injustices does not excuse the presence of this one. If the cost of redressing the imbalance is less then the benefit of doing so, I believe it to be worthwhile.
So you don't care about fairness at all then? Either you care or you don't - you said yourself this is all 'in theory' not about practicality. We're talking about principles, and I'm asking to see what yours are.
Original post by ExcessNeo
Why draw the line after death? Why not take everyones money and distribute it equally among the population all the time? You said it yourself why should one person do better than the other simply because his/her parents are wealthy.
I personally see the idea of removing inheritance as flawed.
I personally see the idea of removing inheritance as flawed.
Because that would be taxing achievement. Money received for work is a good thing: I have no problem with one person earning £5million a day while another earns £100. I do have a problem with one person inheriting £5million while another inherits nothing. In the first case, work is done that contributes to society and is duly rewarded. In the second case, a coin is tossed.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
