Is inheritance tax justifiable?

Thank you for informing me about the actual regulations governing inheritance taxes. I wasn't actually fully aware of any of the laws, I only knew what the actual tax is.

With my newfound knowledge, I'd like to counter by stating that the £500,000 is a mere example, and actual inheritances may dwarf this amount. But regardless, even if it is £20,000 or £1, do you really think it is fair for Governments to take another penny from people even after they die? According to Forbes, average Americans pay $763,920, or $1,440,013 in taxes throughout their lives. I'm just using these statistics to reflect that of British people, since they probably pay a similar amount, and maybe an even greater amount throughout their lives. After contributing so much to the government in the form of taxation, don't you think they've done their duty in the form of helping the wider community inadvertently by paying taxes and "reducing income inequality" which many people use in the argument for inheritance taxes.

Also, even though it may "just" be £20,000, would you give me £20,000 if i just came up to you and asked for it? Since its such a measly amount, you might as well mortgage your house to pay for it. Furthermore, I provided the house only as an example, but inheritances can be passed down in the form of other items that may not be so easy to appraise, so if you can't just "mortgage" your items, you're stuck with a £20,000 bill to foot for what was meant to be a gift to you.

Furthermore, if you do have to pay an upwards of £20,000 in inheritance taxes, I can assure you many people, including the grandparents of my friend, would do that sort of planning in advance to ensure their children aren't burdened by their deaths. Saying that sentence makes me feel sick. It's as if the death of your parents is actually a burden on you, because you need to pay for possessions they pass onto you. It's pretty twisted when you think of it. People can easily will their items to their children from a tender age of 40 or whatever, and live the rest of their lives knowing their children are fine. Or they might as well just purchase goods and services in the names of their children to skip the willing process altogether.

Regarding your last point, I completely disagree. There doesn't seem to be any synonymous relationship between inheritance tax and people working harder. I think it's people's ambitions that drive them to work harder, not the presence of inheritance taxes. Rather, if there was a relationship between inheritance tax and people's incentive to work, I stand by my previous point and state that they would not work as hard or earn as much money, because in the end, the more they earn, the higher the burden on their children and the more they have to pay in inheritance tax.


Thanks for informing me about how anything above £325,000 is taxable up to 40%, it cleared some doubts and misconceptions

Furthermore, it disincentives individuals to accumulate wealth throughout their lives, as what's the point of saving money throughout your life and working hard to ensure your children and future generations live comfortable lives, only for 40% of it to disappear after you die.

Be serious. I bet you're really pleased with that one.

lol. It's good though, I'll give you that

You've inverted my argument. Like reading something backwards then saying it doesn't make sense.

It doesn't prevent 'proper care', but it does take away a lot of the motivation many might have to work. You can't seriously pretend that you're unaware of the efforts many parents go through, to set money aside for their children? To leave them a house? Or maybe you are unaware. Maybe your parents did none of those things.

There would be little point in making the extra effort, if the money were to just be taken away at the end of the day. Just retire earlier instead. I would, if I had the choice between that and laboring away just for someone else to take my shyt without consent.

And there are very strong correlations between depression later in life and childlessness. Even many parents experience it when their kids finally move out the house. I don't think it's coincidence either that Japan has the highest suicide rate, and the lowest population growth rate simultaneously... implying fewer adults are having kids. Though Japan is a very well incubated culture, so it's hard to draw conclusions. If I have to go through the effort of digging up articles or studies up online, I might. The only "evidence" I've ever seen to the contrary of this, is articles or indignant angry blog posts on sites by people ranting about "muh induhpendunce" and such things.

Of course adults can have meaning in their lives without kids. I'm talking trends. Like just because majority of people prefer to sleep nighttime, and experience symptoms of anxiety / depression when they don't... doesn't mean it's true for all. But it is for most.

Besides, it corroborates well with evolutionary theory. Millions of years passed during which the survival of species meant they had to, you know... breed and raise offspring (among most mammals). If we evolved to hate kids, or at the very least be indifferent to them, we probably wouldn't exist.

I'm not even speaking for myself to be frank. I'm a bit eccentric and happen to be of the 'indifferent' variety. Perhaps I'm not old enough yet, as it takes time to develop. But I take interest in the science and psychology of it.

Why would you want to incentivise people to accumulate wealth that they keep until death?

I wanted to know people's opinions on inheritance tax. Basically, the government (or at least the UK government) taxes you if your family's estate when they die is worth more than £325,000 when they die. Above that threshold, you get taxed 40%, may it be only a penny more or 100,000 more.

Do you think if your inheritance was that much it should be taxed? Why or why not?

(I'm just curious. Currently, I have no stance, hence I wanted to know)

EDIT: if anyone can also explain to me how big of a value £325,000 is, that'd be very helpful as I'm an international student here haha coz to me, thats such a big value (around £100k off the lottery jackpot or so)

Economic inequality is a huge driver of poor health in society (refer to my post #35). Inheritance tax tries to tackle that. That's the ultimate reason I'm arguing for inheritance tax. I don't think the taxes they have paid throughout their life is enough. I believe more should be done to reduce inequality (a growing problem in our society). It's not about people paying a certain amount, it's about reducing inequality.

I reckon reducing suffering in the alive population is a sufficient reason to taxing the assets of the dead. Sure, many might feel agitated about this but if 1% of suffering is removed as a result I'm happy to offend the dead.

Generally speaking, things that are difficult to appraise are easier to undrevalue and bypass tax.

If you were to inherit vast amounts, I really don't think it will be such a large burden. If you really don't want to deal with the burden you can literally just sell some of the assets to pay off your due tax. I think you are overly dramatising the burden of such tax. But then again I have never been in this situation before, so I am just assuming this.

In your penultimate paragraph you say "would not work as hard or earn as much money, because in the end, the more they earn, the higher the burden on their children and the more they have to pay in inheritance tax". i.e the more they earn, the more they pay in inheritance tax. But in any job, the more you earn, the more you pay in income tax (I am referring to income tax and not inheritance tax here), and yet people still work hard. In both cases I believe it's peoples ambitions (as you put) that drive them to work harder. The only difference between these two scenarios is that with the inheritance situation, you argue there is a greater burden on the children. This once again goes back to the burden issue. Fair enough, but unfortunately, I think the two of us disagree on the gravity of this.

Thanks for the reply - I think the underlying disagreement is
1. you believe inheritance tax has a huge burden on those receiving inheritance
2. I value economic equality higher than you (just a personal opinion - and everyone is free to have their own)
Did i miss anything?

It's been fun debating with you

It all just boils down to perspective. I'm taking the viewpoint of a greedy bourgeois pig, and you're taking the perspective of aiding the wider community. But just one more thing. Don't forget that the inheritors do suffer through this process, and it may outweigh how much suffering could be alleviated by the inheritance tax. Not just monetary suffering, but more so mental. Like you, I've never had to go through this process, but I can only imagine how dear items that have been willed to you may be, and it would probably be quite difficult to part with them to pay back the tax.

But yeah, to summarize it, our main disagreements lie in:


1. I believe inheritance tax has a large burden on those receiving inheritance
2. You value economic equality higher than me.


It's been fun debating, but I must return to my revision

Well, if people were to spend all of their money in the last few years of their lives after accumulating for so long, there would definitely be some form of demand-pull inflation experienced, which would, in simple terms, be bad.

You could argue that by spending their money, they may help to alleviate cost-push inflation, but again, its dependent on the nation and its current rate of inflation.

Essentially, I'm just saying that people would more likely than not prefer to save their money as a form of fiscal responsibility, so that not only they can thrive, but ultimately their children can live prosperous and happy lives. I'm not a parent, but I believe that's the ultimate goal of one. But with inheritance taxes they may prefer not to save since the tax can be burdensome.

Honestly, not really, more frustrated that I couldn't remember what the term might be. All I could think was Oedipus complex, but that's rather the opposite problem

I thought you simply meant pedophile.

Well for starters please don't neglect the spelling peadophile. A pedophile should be someone who loves feet.

And yes, that thought did cross my mind, but I'm sure there's a more eloquent fancy term for it when it's your own child.

"there would be little point in making the extra effort, if the money were to just be taken away at the end of the day."
If you had a salary of £150k/year would you say there is little point in working harder and making £250k/year?
The extra 100k will be taxed at 40%, same as inheritance tax.

"laboring away just for someone else to take my shyt without consent" you will be doing this your whole life when you pay income tax. Do you disagree with income tax too?

BTW interesting little jab at me. Don't worry my parents did, and still do these things for me

I think it’s a joke our parents & grandparents pay enough tax when they’re alive why should they be taxed when they’re dead too??
And I think £325,000 Is way to low! You can barely get a 1 bedroom flat for that in london!

Do you get taxed the same on houses in foreign countries? I truly hope not. If you do I think it’s mightily unfair

Why should anyone be entitled to their families inheritance? As far as I'm concerned they should be allowed to just spend that money on themselves, give some family stability and cover the rest for care.

It would be far better to guarantee a sufficient safety net for everyone in exchange for seizing assets.

I would disagree. I don’t think it’s fair that people work hard, and then are not allowed to pass down some of the reaps of their labour to their children.

I agree that we all have a civic duty, and we should help our fellow countrymen, but in my opinion, putting stringent inheritance taxes on families isn’t fair.

What do you think the benefit is of such harsh inheritance taxes?

Well obviously the more you take away from people's labor the less they're inclined to work.

My issue with inheritance tax in contrast to income tax for example, is twofold:

- From a pragmatic angle, I always disliked the idea of a one-time levy tax (effective what inheritance tax is), in contrast to more constant streams of revenue. I'm not sure how to word my reasoning for this, but I believe it would have something to do with risk distribution. Governments change, tax rates change, economies go up and down, etc. People can better adjust their spending habits and earning potentials to incremental changes in tax rates rates, or even large changes, when it is distributed over a longer time span. And this will affect most people relatively equally, at least when compared to changes made to one-time levy taxes. Someone who studies economics will probably explain this better than I can, if they can be bothered.

- I don't like the principle of taxing someone's savings upon death. It's not something that can be entirely reasoned. It's more based of a respect I have for people's right to pass on their wealth to their offspring when they die. I just think it is too intimate for the government to get in the way of.

I suppose a 3rd reason (though I haven't thought it through fully), is I imagine it is also less effective. It's easier to "dodge" a one-time tax such as an inheritance tax, with enough planning. It is much harder to dodge income taxes by comparison I think. As mentioned earlier, super-rich who know how to plan and money to hire all legal advice they need, barely have to contend with them at all. Middle classes that struggle with this, get hit the hardest.

They are allowed to pass down some. They can pass down a whole £325,000 without anyone touching it...

£325,000 is not a lot of money. You can’t even buy a flat for that!

Allowance for passing a house to children is actually £450,000. Average flat price in London last year was £550,000. So if you were to inherit a £550,000 flat you will owe £40,000 in tax. I don't think that is too ridiculous