Norway Loony. Why the surprise?

[Cormac]

Inheritance taxes and a ban on perpetual trusts already deal with people with large amounts of Capital.

In any case, those with large amounts of Capital comprise a very small percentage of the population. What is your real problem with them? What precisely would you do with them?
I just don't think there is anything wrong with wealth, capital, or property. I think that the right to acquire and hold these is a fundamental right.

You've given the answer. I would make inheritance tax 100%.
I agree with your last sentence. But you didn't mention inherit.

If inheritance tax was 100%, people should pay less in income tax, with the corresponding incentive to earn. So the incentive to leave your kids a bundle would disappear, but you get to keep more of what you earn. It should balance out.

Why on earth should I allow the state to take what I've managed to save in my lifetime. I'd set it on fire before I'd allow that. A reasonable portion (<15%) would be about tolerable.

I see absolutely no justification for the state taking 100%.

[Cormac]

We have welfare states in Europe precisely so that we will no longer have people starving, or having to live on the streets, or dying for want of healthcare. I am a conservative, economically speaking, and for conservative principles, I think the welfare state is a good idea (but with strict limits). This is because, in the interest of improving economic performance, it is good for society to have good health, an ever improving educational profile across society, and the limitation of violent social unrest.

My issue is that once this was established, the goalposts were moved by leftists to change the definition of poverty to being one not of lack of food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare, but instead one of a fixed (or growing) percentage of average income.

Excellent statement of the problem with modern attitudes toward "poverty".

Honestly, I'd probably be okay with a fixed percentage if it weren't constantly pushed towrds 100%.

Recognising of course that a fixed percentage means that it is impossible for society to eradicate poverty, (even though as a matter of fact, poverty may have been utterly eradicated).

[GrahamH]

We have welfare states in Europe precisely so that we will no longer have people starving, or having to live on the streets, or dying for want of healthcare. I am a conservative, economically speaking, and for conservative principles, I think the welfare state is a good idea (but with strict limits). This is because, in the interest of improving economic performance, it is good for society to have good health, an ever improving educational profile across society, and the limitation of violent social unrest.

My issue is that once this was established, the goalposts were moved by leftists to change the definition of poverty to being one not of lack of food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare, but instead one of a fixed (or growing) percentage of average income.

Excellent statement of the problem with modern attitudes toward "poverty".

Honestly, I'd probably be okay with a fixed percentage if it weren't constantly pushed towrds 100%.

Recognising of course that a fixed percentage means that it is impossible for society to eradicate poverty, (even though as a matter of fact, poverty may have been utterly eradicated).

Strictly speaking poverty could be eliminated with a fixed percentage, if the income gap was less than the relative poverty line. If poverty was defined as 20% of average earnings, and if every one had an average income +/- 30%, then nobody would be below the poverty line. That is a much harder target to hit than ensuring that everybody can meet their basic needs.

[mistermack]

Why on earth should I allow the state to take what I've managed to save in my lifetime. I'd set it on fire before I'd allow that. A reasonable portion (<15%) would be about tolerable.

I see absolutely no justification for the state taking 100%.

Because every penny taken in inheritance tax should be taken off income tax.
So you are simply paying the tax when you die, rather than month by month in your wages.
It has to be better, because if you get more money month by month, you can spend it.
You can't spend it when you're dead.

And lower income tax is an incentive for everybody.

I personally think that it's better that way. Obviously there would have to be a threshold on the size of estates, before you started paying. That happens now.

What it does is to put a brake on the process of the accumulation of capital into bigger and bigger lumps, owned by smaller and smaller groups of people. This is happening because it's become virtually impossible to spend what some people have accumulated.

Many billionaires are actually choosing not to leave their kids the bulk of their estates, but to plough it into charities. Bill Gates is one.

[Cormac]

Why on earth should I allow the state to take what I've managed to save in my lifetime. I'd set it on fire before I'd allow that. A reasonable portion (<15%) would be about tolerable.

I see absolutely no justification for the state taking 100%.

Because every penny taken in inheritance tax should be taken off income tax.
So you are simply paying the tax when you die, rather than month by month in your wages.
It has to be better, because if you get more money month by month, you can spend it.
You can't spend it when you're dead.

And lower income tax is an incentive for everybody.

I personally think that it's better that way. Obviously there would have to be a threshold on the size of estates, before you started paying. That happens now.

What it does is to put a brake on the process of the accumulation of capital into bigger and bigger lumps, owned by smaller and smaller groups of people. This is happening because it's become virtually impossible to spend what some people have accumulated.

Many billionaires are actually choosing not to leave their kids the bulk of their estates, but to plough it into charities. Bill Gates is one.

A large part of the effort I put in at work is precisely so that I can provide a better start in life for my children. I don't give a shit about spending on me day to day, once I've a roof over my head and food on my table.

Why would there be a threshold on estates in your approach?

The money that such people have accumulated doesn't sit inert in bank accounts, (because, for one thing, the value of such money is lost to the state through deposit interest and inflation). Such money is loaned out to allow people to create new businesses and to buy homes, cars, etc. This employment of Capital is an efficient way of creating and circulating greater wealth in society. In return for this value, the owners of the original funds receive a fee, usually in the form of interest).

It is essential to have free capital like this to drive economies forward. It is a question of liquidity, mobility, and flexibility of funds.

Bill Gates will still leave substantial monies to his children - just not monies on the order of the wealth of a moderately sized state.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

When there was about 1,000,000 people in the world, a one-in-a-million loony was pretty rare. Now there are over 300,000,000 people in the US alone, so there are hundreds of the one-in-a-million guys running around right now. (Most of them reside in D.C., of course.)

Are you talking about me again?

Where is it you live, again?

[MrJonno]

No one wants to pay any more taxes than they can get away with so asking if inheritance tax is good or bad is silly.

The question is would you rather pay income tax, inheritance tax, sales tax, sin taxes etc. I'm all for a higher inheritance tax lower income tax one of the reasons is it stops you getting capital rich old pensioners taking large amounts of the state effectively being subsidised by younger people with far less wealth.

Fine if you want to leave money to your adult children but your first duty is to care for yourself financially and not rely on the state where possible

[laklak]

Fuck inheritance tax. They already taxed it, why should they get to tax it again? That's simply jealousy disguised as "wealth redistribution". If I want to work my ass off and leave it to my kids that's my business, I've already given the government their fair share. The fact that somebody else didn't work as hard and doesn't have as much to leave their kids isn't my problem, maybe they should have worked a little harder.

Inheritance tax is theft, pure and simple.

[MrJonno]

Fuck inheritance tax. They already taxed it, why should they get to tax it again? That's simply jealousy disguised as "wealth redistribution". If I want to work my ass off and leave it to my kids that's my business, I've already given the government their fair share. The fact that somebody else didn't work as hard and doesn't have as much to leave their kids isn't my problem, maybe they should have worked a little harder.

Inheritance tax is theft, pure and simple.

So you would rather pay higher income tax/sales tax then?

No living person has ever paid inheritance tax by the way

[laklak]

Absolutely would rather pay higher income tax. Inheritance tax penalizes hard work and subsidizes wasteful government spending - though TBH it's usually wasteful government spending that brings up inheritance tax increases to start with. Pay as you go, that's my motto. If governments were required to balance their budgets on an annual basis you'd see a pretty damn immediate decrease in unnecessary expenditures. Well, you certainly would after they raise income taxes to unbearable levels to support their drunken sailor on leave spending, because they'd get voted out of office.

High inheritance taxes are a disincentive. Why should I work hard establishing a business or accumulating wealth if the government is simply going to take it all when I die? I didn't work my ass off for so long just for myself, I'd have gotten along just fine on a third of what I've earned. The remainder is for the future, for my kids when I pop my clogs. If I lived in a welfare state with 100% inheritance tax I wouldn't have bothered, I'd just have taken some menial job and smoked a lot more dope.

On second thought......

[Cormac]

No one wants to pay any more taxes than they can get away with so asking if inheritance tax is good or bad is silly.

The question is would you rather pay income tax, inheritance tax, sales tax, sin taxes etc. I'm all for a higher inheritance tax lower income tax one of the reasons is it stops you getting capital rich old pensioners taking large amounts of the state effectively being subsidised by younger people with far less wealth.

Fine if you want to leave money to your adult children but your first duty is to care for yourself financially and not rely on the state where possible

I've never relied on the state for anything.

I've always earned my way. I've had jobs since I was 11.

I earn my way, and I plan to leave whatever capital I have left to my children, no matter what age they are.

I will also leave some to charity.

Anything I get from the state on my retirement will have been MORE than paid for during my working career.

So, what is your problem with me leaving my capital to my children? Capital, which, I remind you, has been scrimped together as AFTER-TAX income?

Is it your opinion that the state owns everything?

It is right to cast these matters in light of right and wrong.

It isn't simply a question of pouring more and more money into the state. First and foremost the state has a duty to spend monies raised with the permission of the public in the most efficient manner possible. As far as I can see, public service "organisations" universally fail to operate efficiently. It is neither ethical nor moral to pour more money into inefficient processes.

[Cormac]

Fuck inheritance tax. They already taxed it, why should they get to tax it again? That's simply jealousy disguised as "wealth redistribution". If I want to work my ass off and leave it to my kids that's my business, I've already given the government their fair share. The fact that somebody else didn't work as hard and doesn't have as much to leave their kids isn't my problem, maybe they should have worked a little harder.

Inheritance tax is theft, pure and simple.

So you would rather pay higher income tax/sales tax then?

No living person has ever paid inheritance tax by the way

This is the fallacy of the false dichotomy. It is not an either or situation.

The state is horrendously inefficient, because the state will not enforce proper performance management, disciplinary procedures, and will not enforce efficiency cultures. Consequently, it is neither ethical nor moral to pour more public money into such an organisation.

[Cormac]

Fuck inheritance tax. They already taxed it, why should they get to tax it again? That's simply jealousy disguised as "wealth redistribution". If I want to work my ass off and leave it to my kids that's my business, I've already given the government their fair share. The fact that somebody else didn't work as hard and doesn't have as much to leave their kids isn't my problem, maybe they should have worked a little harder.

Inheritance tax is theft, pure and simple.

So you would rather pay higher income tax/sales tax then?

No living person has ever paid inheritance tax by the way

Perhaps not in your country.

It is charged in Ireland, and the imposition of these charges often works to cause families to lose their homes, farms, businesses, etc. This is because tax becomes immediately payable as soon as the asset vests in ownership of the recipient. So, in order to pay the tax, they have to sell the property. Interest is calculated from day one. Therefore, there is great pressure to sell, which may lead to disadvantageous pricing.

Disgusting. It is a theft.

[laklak]

Disgusting. It is a theft.

More like a strong-arm extortion racket. If you don't pay, they'll send armed goons around to collect it.

Nice lookin farm you got here, be a shame if something would happen to it.

[mistermack]

This argument that the money has already been taxed is totally ludicrous.
When you buy anything, it's taxed again. Money is taxed whenever it changes hands, except for when you buy food.

In fact, people who inherit vast sums get a huge tax break at the moment.
If you worked for that money, you would pay tax. If it's dropped in your lap, you seem to think you should pay nothing. In my view it's income and should at least be taxed as income.

This leads to a ridiculous situation. Imagine a farmer who had two sons, one working from dawn till dusk, gets paid £30,000 and pays full tax on it.
The other son does nothing, but he's the favourite. The father GIVES him £100,000.
Your argument would have him paying nothing, and the other paying full income tax.