The Chronicles of Rishi

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You could divide the nation into two groups:

1/
People who work diligently and build up their assets, including inherited assets/wealth.

2/
People who work diligently with little or no ability to build assets.

What I’m seeing here (Forum) are lefties of various flavours who regard unearned wealth as partial property the state can 40% take and give to group 2.

But say the wealth left behind in a will is all earned on which tax has already been paid? Unfair to tax it again just because it becomes unearned wealth for the next generation.

Lefties basically apply the politics of envy. Until they ‘get the foreman’s job at last’.

Wealth is routinely taxed when it moves from one person or business to another. I paid income tax on the money I’ve just spent on a coffee. The coffee shop owner will pay tax on that part of my payment that represents their profit. The part of my payment that is used to buy more coffee beans will generate a profit for the wholesaler, who will in turn pay tax on their profit. Wealth moves around the economy and it is taxed almost every time. Suggesting that the very significant value of an entire personal estate should not be taxed when it is transferred, on death, to another person, is special pleading of the very worst kind. The only exemption that makes any sense is the spousal one because their life is intimately connected with the deceased’s affairs and it would be egregious to destroy the living of someone who legitimately depends on that accumulated wealth. But nobody - nobody - should be dependent on the wealth of an inheritance. There is nothing lefty about that belief. We have had inheritance taxes of one sort or another in this country since the 17th century. The only thing that’s really changed in that time is how well designed they are. Abolishing them altogether is really only doing the rich tax-avoiders jobs for them.

Footnote, claiming that the collection of tax betrays a ‘wealth belongs to the state’ mindset is the worst sort of self serving, libertarian guff. We live in a democracy and we agree, via the ballot box, that the operation of the complex modern society we live in should be paid for by all of us, with due regard to means.

[Sephiroth]

What if you’re dragged into the IHT zone by this shitty government and you have/will have no care costs to consume that wealth? Why is it fair to tax my children on their inheritance?

Care could be funded from better spending choices by the shitty government.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What if you’re dragged into the IHT zone by this shitty government and you have/will have no care costs to consume that wealth? Why is it fair to tax my children on their inheritance?

What do you think of May's plan where the cost of care would be secured against your assets if you have any?

Personally, I feel it's unfair. One of the principles of the NHS is that we pool the risk for each other somewhat. Some people will need more care and others less. It was still a way to pay for it though.

Care could be funded from better spending choices by the shitty government.

Like what? The biggest bills in this country are pensions and the NHS. You're not going to be able to afford government-backed social care by finding 'efficiencies', it's a bill that will go into several billions a year, so we need to pay for it somehow.

An inheritance tax is one of the fairest ways to do this right now. Anything else and you're asking those in work to underwrite the social care costs of a generation who already has benefitted from rising house prices and triple-locked pensions. Personally i think you would need both: a social care tax and some of the money taken back upon your death via inheritance tax.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What if you’re dragged into the IHT zone by this shitty government and you have/will have no care costs to consume that wealth? Why is it fair to tax my children on their inheritance?

Care could be funded from better spending choices by the shitty government.

Why is any tax fair? Tax is necessary to fund everything we expect this country to be able to do for us. We accept that the fairest way to tax is to cream off a portion of wealth as it moves through the economy. It is no more or less fair to tax your children when they benefit from your estate than it is to tax their bank interest, or their wages.

NB Appealing to non-specific ‘Better choices’ is the last refuge of the NIMBY. ‘I don’t know how, just not that way’ is intellectually lazy. This is a discussion forum - propose some alternatives, and explain why they are more fair than inheritance tax.

[Sephiroth]

£70 billion pissed away on HS2; Most of £40 billion pissed away on the over-long Covid lockdown; £40 billion that Truss caused to be pissed away. Overseas aid to India & China.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

£70 billion pissed away on HS2; Most of £40 billion pissed away on the over-long Covid lockdown; £40 billion that Truss caused to be pissed away. Overseas aid to India & China.

All of that barely touches the sides.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What if you’re dragged into the IHT zone by this shitty government and you have/will have no care costs to consume that wealth? Why is it fair to tax my children on their inheritance?

Care could be funded from better spending choices by the shitty government.

My family will be but guess what, they're fine with that and it isn't the spending choices that need to be better it's the tax system that needs to be better, billionaires paying less in tax than their cleaners, corporations paying less in tax than their ceo's earn and evasion dressed up as avoidance, if these things were tightened up on then perhaps taxes across the board could be lower

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You could divide the nation into two groups:

1/
People who work diligently and build up their assets, including inherited assets/wealth.

2/
People who work diligently with little or no ability to build assets.

What I’m seeing here (Forum) are lefties of various flavours who regard unearned wealth as partial property the state can 40% take and give to group 2.

But say the wealth left behind in a will is all earned on which tax has already been paid? Unfair to tax it again just because it becomes unearned wealth for the next generation.

Lefties basically apply the politics of envy. Until they ‘get the foreman’s job at last’.

You missed out on the 3rd group who, ironically have far more (fairly) taxable wealth that the other groups:

3/ People who do not work diligently, rather, rely on existing wealth (property, shares, dividends, etc.) and build up their assets principally via tax loopholes and generous (to the wealthy) schemes where little or no tax is paid to the state.

Loving the "politics of envy" trope It betrays poor imagination to constantly trot this out each time taxation is discussed. It normally is presented by those who:

a) have significantly more than the average amount of personal wealth
b) resent having to pay any tax, over and above what they regard as a fair amount i.e. a small amount
c) still expect the country to have high quality infrastructure & services, at least where they live

[Sephiroth]

I omitted the third group because it's such a small fraction of the population and it makes the point that people dragged into the tax by government tricks are unfairly treated. They are ordinary people who are not responsible for the artificial inflation of house prices.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I omitted the third group because it's such a small fraction of the population and it makes the point that people dragged into the tax by government tricks are unfairly treated. They are ordinary people who are not responsible for the artificial inflation of house prices.

You don’t need to be responsible for the artificial inflation of house prices to be a beneficiary.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I omitted the third group because it's such a small fraction of the population and it makes the point that people dragged into the tax by government tricks are unfairly treated. They are ordinary people who are not responsible for the artificial inflation of house prices.

The elephant in the room is that the people you refer to have been, as you correctly identify, "dragged" into an increased tax burden by this government. The 40% tax bracket is a prime example. The reason is that middle income PAYE employees are an obvious cash cow i.e. there is no escaping the tax directive.

The more appropriate approach is to apply a more representative and fairer tax rate to all UK citizens, not just the ones who can't escape from HMRC.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

The elephant in the room is that the people you refer to have been, as you correctly identify, "dragged" into an increased tax burden by this government. The 40% tax bracket is a prime example. The reason is that middle income PAYE employees are an obvious cash cow i.e. there is no escaping the tax directive.

The more appropriate approach is to apply a more representative and fairer tax rate to all UK citizens, not just the ones who can't escape from HMRC.

Ah - a flat tax. Good.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Ah - a flat tax. Good.

Not what he said…

(may be what he meant, but not what he said)

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Ah - a flat tax. Good.

Flat tax - bad

Why? Because this would only be imposed on income and not wealth. The classic ultra wealthy deflection: talk about taxing income but never about taxing wealth

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Flat tax - bad

Why? Because this would only be imposed on income and not wealth. The classic ultra wealthy deflection: talk about taxing income but never about taxing wealth

Your true colours exposed. Scarlet red with notes of virtue signalling jealousy. There’s wealth as a relative measure and wealth at an extreme. The lower end of wealth is undefined except by the IHT threshold on which the shitty government preys.