East end of glasgow - life expectancy under 60. Home counties. Life expectancy over 80
The myth that those who do well in life its all down to their efforts is bogus. Watch that video
100% inheritance tax? What, so the Tories can splaff it on their pals for spurious and unworkable (insert any recent government scheme) projects? How does that address inequality in our society?
I am leaving all my money to the cat home.
If there was 100% inheritance tax, you'd just end up with currently responsible people deciding to spaff it all away on Ferraris, Santa Cruzs, cocaine and hookers whilst they are able to.
(What we can't use to legally support our kids and grandkids, we may as well piiish away. It's effectively punishment for being financially responsible earlier in life.
The myth that those who do well in life its all down to their efforts is bogus.
I would agree. Fortunately no one here so far has said it's all down to their efforts, so I can't see any myth.
You make your own luck in life. Try it.
One thing. They'd not even let my remaining parent buy themselves a pre-pay funeral from their own money. What Barstewards.
It does stand up to a lot of scrutiny. Making your own luck is not incompatible with also getting some at birth. In a relatively level playing field in the Western world you can still make your own luck after birth.
The advantage you are born with follows you all your life. Decisions you make influence where you end up of course - and luck has very little to do with it unless you win a lottery
Eloquence and dialectic not your forte either I see.
Good point well made. Soz.
100% inheritance tax? What, so the Tories can splaff it on their pals for spurious and unworkable (insert any recent government scheme) projects? How does that address inequality in our society?
That's exactly what I was thinking! Who's to say the money left to kids won't go to making a better society? As an only child with parents who split and both remarried I may end up with an inheritance. I don't have children and plan on using that money to do good things and will leave all my assets to various charities when I die but I want to choose which ones.
The advantage you are born with follows you all your life. Decisions you make influence where you end up of course – and luck has very little to do with it unless you win a lottery
You make your own luck doesn't mean you rely on the lottery. It means that there are ways to improve your destiny through effort, persistence, vision, risk etc. It is often a way to offset for a lack of luck actually. But it is not mutually exclusive with have some sort of luck too.
”You make your own luck” does not mean that ”those who do well in life its all down to their efforts”. No myth to be debunked here. Still.
Not a binary proposition either.
100% IHT (which is what started this particular digression) is a ridiculous idea IMO. Do you support it?
yes
You miss the other quote as well
100% inheritance tax also hits the poorer (not the poorest, who weren’t getting anything anyway).
Splitting a bungalow that hasn’t been maintained since the 80s, a few grand from the bank and a princess di plate set with 4 siblings is what they stand to inherit (or not as the case may be) because the parents had little, and needed it for themselves while they were alive.
The upper middle class (for want of a better description) on the other hand have been pouring money on their kids since the day they were born.
Private schools, house deposits, all sorts of investments over the years, all completely safe.
It would almost be better with no iht or care home funding. Then most (yes, not all) would get something… and they might spend it in the economy.
You could have say £50 000 ( or whatever sum you think right) at zero tax to inherit and then 100% thereafter
Another thing with inheritances is that with the longer lives we live now folk do not tend to inherit until their 50s or 60s. Its not like you are setting your kids up in life - you are setting them up in retirement.
As regards care costs - are you prepared for a huge rise in taxation to cover free care for all just so middle class folk inherit to get a more comfortable retirement? lets be clear - not using assets to pay for old age care benefits the children of middle class parents the most
why should the general taxpayer pay so middle class folk get to keep more money? Thats a transfer of wealth from poor to rich
Its one of those issues that looks unfair from both sides
Japan has a lifetime tax free allowance *for beneficiaries* of about £100k IIRC and anything over gets taxed. I think this is a much better system in principle than the UK. Of course I’m sure there are limits and loopholes there too (agriculture being a likely example there as it is in the UK).
I don’t think a 100% tax rate is sensible but it could easily go up and the threshold go down. The first million pounds is tax free for most married couples (it’s technically £650k plus a house allowance of £350k, and almost everyone with £1m assets has a £350k house).
As tjagain says, the vast majority of inherited wealth passes *to* rich homeowners in their 50s and 60s. It’s not needy youngsters getting a leg up. It’s the already rich getting further riches heaped upon them.
Tj, of course one can use their inheretence they get in their 50/60s to set up their kids or grand kids for life. The average 50 year old probably has kids at Uni who might quite like support with fees etc. the average 60 year old probably has a child looking to get on the property ladder. Some certainly do this, but that only reinforces the inequalities - the grand child with no inheritance or “selfish” parents gets nothing but others are showered in “luck”.
of course you could argue that the current system is actually set up to encourage this - if you inherit at 55 you can very likely distribute that wealth without worrying too much about IHT or Care Cost calculations.
100% taxation on anything is obviously pretty crazy. Personally I’d treat it just the same as other income. Easy enough to have special rules or exemptions for anything you particularly want to encourage (eg with property only needs paid on disposal). Get rid of the seven year rule and all the IHT planning stuff - treat gifts the same way too.
I don’t think a 100% tax rate is sensible but it could easily go up and the threshold go down.
It IS going down. And at quite a rate through fiscal drag.
I agree with you that a 100% rate is not sensible. In fact it would be irresponsible and would make everyone poorer, and the poorest would suffer the most.
Fiscal policies are far far more complex than most realise. Small changes can prove catastrophic, as we have seen under Truss.
So big changes like a 100% IHT are the stuff of the clueless I'm afraid. It would create even more inflation, massively cut inward investment, generate a brain drain etc etc...
So big changes like a 100% IHT are the stuff of the clueless I’m afraid. It would create even more inflation, massively cut inward investment, generate a brain drain etc etc…
This is just such a bizarre string of non-sequiturs. You could call it "the stuff of the clueless".
Something like 100k lifetime exemption, 40% beyond that up to the first million and then 60% thereafter would raise a shit-ton of money and help to prevent the increased concentration of wealth in a small minority. While still giving a free pass to those who are desperately attached to Aunt Edna's tea service, and indeed the vast majority of people who never get close to 100k of bequests over their lifetime.
Of course the richer end of the middle classes would bleat about their "right" to inherit the house they grew up in and moved out of decades earlier (yes, there really are people who think like this) but society would be better off for it.
Maybe rich people would try to do something more useful with their money before they die, too.
and the poorest would suffer the most.
the poorest do not have inheritance to give or receive other than a few quid. My grandparents entire estate was under £1000 and they were not poor.
Unless wealth is used to pay for old age care then how are you going to pay for this? Its huge sums so needs to be raised somehow
Its huge sums so needs to be raised somehow
National insurance was the last suggestion.
the total cost of old age care in the UK is in the region of 50 billion per year in the UK. Thats almost as much as education and more than defense and around 10% of total government spending if i have my back of fag packet sums right.
Now some of that is already paid for by the state. Even so thats huge sums to raise. 20% rise in national insurance? so a couple of pence on income tax effectively
Is it fair that taxpayers should pay this to ensure middle class folk get to inherit?
It’s not politics, it realising that the society you are part of benefits you every day in many ways which most people seem to be totally ignorant of.
It is standard tory politics: the rich (and their kids) deserve to be rich, and the poor deserve to be poor.
I am white, male, born in a rich country to parents with decent jobs, who were interested in my education. That I now have a very well paid job is due to a very large slice of luck.
Now some of that is already paid for by the state. Even so thats huge sums to raise. 20% rise in national insurance? so a couple of pence on income tax effectively
I have to say I've never understood why pensioners, who are very large recipient of benefits, huge part of NHS cost etc don't pay NI. Seems that if pension income was NI'able you'd have a significant source of revenue without squeezing "hard working families"... and the very poorest (those with just state pension) would not cross the threshold so it would be "fair" too...
