Any landlords?

WiresDreamDisasters

Tex Mexico said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Tex Mexico said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Tex Mexico said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

No it isn't. The argument is that it's unfair.

That's implied. It's unfair, supposedly, because it's anti-meritocratic.

This is a connection you're drawing, but I think it is wrong. Merit is not required for someone to be free to make the choice of handing down the profits of their labour to their loved ones.

Merit doesn't even come into it.

Well that's a more complex argument, but what we're talking about here is the merit of people who receive the wealth, so merit as a necessary condition of wealth.

The point I'm making is the hypocrisy of the below:
Welfare dependents: no merit
Inheritors of family wealth: merit.

Well who said that?

I guess I can go digging if you like but for example I've just finished the three-tome diaries of Alan Clark MP, and he was very strong on both of those things, both his contempt for the unemployed in general and their undeservedness of any form of state support, and also his views on the inherent superiority of the aristocratic ruling class, of which he was a member. He inherited a tremendous amount of property wealth, if not a great deal of money, and he exploited to the full whatever loopholes he could find to not only retain the full extent of that wealth but also use grants and so on to capitalise on it, while fairly consistently voting against welfare for the poor and/or jobless.

Another consistent vote of his was against the removal of hereditary peers from the HoL.

It's just one example but there are loads more.

Right. Well obviously I don't think hereditary peership and inheritance are the same thing. Makes me think of those batshit insane ladies (yes they're always ladies) who leave their estates to their cats or whatever. Point is - it's a choice an individual makes.

Hereditary whatevers (peership, cancer, big dick genes, etc) aren't choices. I've got a propensity for heart disease that I didn't choose. Got it from my dad's side of the family. But if I decide my daughter gets all my amps when I die (and hopefully at that point I'll have like.. 50 amps or so!!) then that's my choice to make.

Your average working class person who has broken through the middle-class-glass-ceiling, who then wants to hand down their property to their kids in order to give them a headstart in life, which is a perfectly normal and loving thing for a parent to want to do.... I don't think those people should be put into the same bucket as rich landowners who own 28 gajillion farms and mansions and who game the system to avoid paying taxes.

The former should pay tax for sure. But bloody hell, not 50%. That's a piss-take considering they've been paying into the system all their lives. It's effectively locking (or biasing towards locking) them all in a working class environment and making it more difficult for them to improve their lives.

Tex Mexico

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Right. Well obviously I don't think hereditary peership and inheritance are the same thing. Makes me think of those batshit insane ladies (yes they're always ladies) who leave their estates to their cats or whatever. Point is - it's a choice an individual makes.

Hereditary whatevers (peership, cancer, big dick genes, etc) aren't choices. I've got a propensity for heart disease that I didn't choose. Got it from my dad's side of the family. But if I decide my daughter gets all my amps when I die (and hopefully at that point I'll have like.. 50 amps or so!!) then that's my choice to make.

Your average working class person who has broken through the middle-class-glass-ceiling, who then wants to hand down their property to their kids in order to give them a headstart in life, which is a perfectly normal and loving thing for a parent to want to do.... I don't think those people should be put into the same bucket as rich landowners who own 28 gajillion farms and mansions and who game the system to avoid paying taxes.

The former should pay tax for sure. But bloody hell, not 50%. That's a piss-take considering they've been paying into the system all their lives. It's effectively locking (or biasing towards locking) them all in a working class environment and making it more difficult for them to improve their lives.

Yeah, I agree with you. I don't know what the solution would be, only that the current systems are a load of shit. I've inherited stuff myself so it would be hypocritical of me to complain about other people doing it, but I also don't think it's the same thing as Georgie Fossington Smedley-Smedley-Basset-Minerva III inheriting a hundred mil in land and cash and titles and by default becoming a major player in business and politics.

ToneControl

Tex Mexico said:

crunchman said:

Why shouldn't I work hard and pass something on to my kids?

Inheritance tax causes all kinds of other problems.  I've heard stories of productive businesses folding and people being put on the dole because of inheritance tax.  One of them was a business that employed around 15 people.  The owner died, but the "value" of the business for inheritance tax purposes meant that the family had to sell it to pay the tax.  I don't think they could find a buyer as a business, so it basically got sold for the value of the land.  It ended up getting shut down and 15 or so people ended up on the dole.  That business stopped paying any employers NI or corporation tax.  The loss to the Treasury would have been a lot greater long term than what they got back in inheritance tax.

The other problem with it is that the very rich dodge it anyway.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10745009/The-desperate-tactics-being-used-to-avoid-inheritance-tax.html

They buy farmland with no intention of farming it themselves. It's driving up the cost of farmland so genuine farmers can't afford it.  They might close that loop hole, but the tax dodging filthy rich will find some other loop hole.

They would be far better off increasing the inheritance tax threshold, and reducing the rate, and charging capital gains tax on a house you live in to make up the shortfall.  That would stop people buying houses as an investment, and reduce the price of housing long term, which would solve the problem of rents being too high.

The argument against wealth redistribution (i.e. taxation/welfare) is that it's anti-meritocractic. That argument seems however to be most loudly made by people who have inherited a substantial portion of their own wealth and position and whose children will inherit even more. It perpetuates inequality. At the same time, why shouldn't your kids get the house?

On the other hand, as you say inheritance tax is problematic for the moderately affluent, and the very affluent dodge it anyway, so by and large it's a broken system.

We already have wealth redistribution. I pay tax to subsidise others.

Do you mean taxing my assets a second time after I die?

Why would it be fair to tax my income twice?

ToneControl

Tex Mexico said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

No it isn't. The argument is that it's unfair.

That's implied. It's unfair, supposedly, because it's anti-meritocratic.

what do you define as merit? those who don't spend all their money?
would you like the tax system to penalise those who save to buy their house, in order for the government to pay for the rent of those (for example) on the same salary who retired after spending all their earnings during their working lives?

Tex Mexico

ToneControl said:

We already have wealth redistribution. I pay tax to subsidise others.

Do you mean taxing my assets a second time after I die?

Why would it be fair to tax my income twice?

I think we all know that any income isn't taxed only once. But no, I'm not saying I know what a fairer solution would be.

ToneControl said:

what do you define as merit? those who don't spend all their money?
would you like the tax system to penalise those who save to buy their house, in order for the government to pay for the rent of those (for example) on the same salary who retired after spending all their earnings during their working lives?

I don't like the word "merit" at all in this context. It presupposes all kinds of problematic things, like for example a direct correlation between hard work and net wealth.

I'm absolutely not proposing that those who paid off their homes should be penalised in favour of those who didn't. There does however need to exist something that addresses the fact that some people at some point inherit six figures' worth of property, and some people get nothing, essentially by an accident of birth.

ToneControl

Tex Mexico said:

ToneControl said:

We already have wealth redistribution. I pay tax to subsidise others.

Do you mean taxing my assets a second time after I die?

Why would it be fair to tax my income twice?

I think we all know that any income isn't taxed only once. But no, I'm not saying I know what a fairer solution would be.

ToneControl said:

what do you define as merit? those who don't spend all their money?
would you like the tax system to penalise those who save to buy their house, in order for the government to pay for the rent of those (for example) on the same salary who retired after spending all their earnings during their working lives?

I don't like the word "merit" at all in this context. It presupposes all kinds of problematic things, like for example a direct correlation between hard work and net wealth.

I'm absolutely not proposing that those who paid off their homes should be penalised in favour of those who didn't. There does however need to exist something that addresses the fact that some people at some point inherit six figures' worth of property, and some people get nothing, essentially by an accident of birth.

you sounded as if you were opposed to meritocractic systems

we do have something that addresses the fact that some people at some point inherit six figures' worth of property, and some people get nothing, essentially by an accident of birth. We have a welfare state, with free education and healthcare. Raw capitalism has none of these things. Then it comes down to agreeing on "how much?" support to give people. At one extreme there is no incentive to usefully work or contribute to society, because everything is free (albeit everything is crap or unavailable in communist regimes), or nothing is free, and there is no support for the poor.

if the govt told people that there's no point in sacrificing spending cash now in order to save it to pay for their own retirement or as a boost to their childrens' quality of life (because the cash will be confiscated by the state), then people will go on fancy holidays abroad, etc. and piss the money up the wall, leaving the state to pay for any uncovered costs in old age.

It's an old topic, but down to whether you think passing cash to your kids is fair.
When we were talking about aristocrats who inherited massive estates the size of counties, it's a different issue. That kind of inequity is not down to hard work in the previous generation, rather fundamental issues of the aftermath of how the country was run as an abolute monarchy hundreds of years ago. Estates of dukes were typically awarded as poltical gifts from monarchs


At the next step down in scale you had the question of whether to effectively confiscate nearly half of a family farm each time the parent dies. this happened in the 70s in the UK, and I assume in the previous decade. AFAIK farms are now exempt, but why would it be fair to confiscate something built up through effort and enterprise. Over 2 or 3 generations this policy would make a farming family owning land into people looking for work on someone else's land

robgilmo

Just a quick one on the inheritance thing, give a start in life? what like then they are 50/60 years old? They say life starts at 50 but if you have to wait that long to get some cash to give you a start you may as well just give up.