Rich, poor, workers, owners...

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

21st February 2010, 22:31
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

But I'm all for inheritance freedom. I get a sense of bitterness or maybe jealousy from people who believe in high taxes on inheritance.

An inheritance tax is a simply evil idea. As it is, an estate is taxed on the income that the assets of the deceased generate, but the transference of those assets is hardly what you'd call a deliberate profit generating enterprise.

In the vast majority of cases, those assets are either sold and the proceeds distributed, or the assets which aren't sold are the personal effects of the deceased, or capital assets like their house or motor cars. Whatever the case, the fact remains that nobody deliberately dies in order to make a profit.
21st February 2010, 23:40
Lousada

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

An inheritance tax is a simply evil idea. As it is, an estate is taxed on the income that the assets of the deceased generate, but the transference of those assets is hardly what you'd call a deliberate profit generating enterprise.

In the vast majority of cases, those assets are either sold and the proceeds distributed, or the assets which aren't sold are the personal effects of the deceased, or capital assets like their house or motor cars. Whatever the case, the fact remains that nobody deliberately dies in order to make a profit.

Which is not the point. The point is that when you have income you should be taxed for it. Whether that comes from working, from capital gains, or from somebody else dying.
It also makes sure large fortunes are broken down. Which means you really have to work for your own wealth. But from your other post I gather you do not believe in redistribution of income.
21st February 2010, 23:53
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lousada

But from your other post I gather you do not believe in redistribution of income.

So you believe in redistribution of income? I'm curious as to why you think that it's ok for government to sieze one man's property and hand it over to someone who has no right to it.
22nd February 2010, 00:12
Lousada

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

So you believe in redistribution of income? I'm curious as to why you think that it's ok for government to sieze one man's property and hand it over to someone who has no right to it.

In my opinion everybody should have equal opportunities. In order to achieve this, you'll take money from people who least need it (the rich) to people who most need it (the poor).
22nd February 2010, 00:17
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lousada

In my opinion everybody should have equal opportunities. In order to achieve this, you'll take money from people who least need it (the rich) to people who most need it (the poor).

I have a very big problem with this line of thinking. And your line of thinking seems to be gaining popularity quite rapidly. That scares the hell out of me.

Equal opportuninties does not guaruntee equal results. But by FORCING equal results you are DESTROYING equal rights.
22nd February 2010, 00:20
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lousada

The point is that when you have income you should be taxed for it. Whether that comes from working, from capital gains, or from somebody else dying.
It also makes sure large fortunes are broken down. Which means you really have to work for your own wealth. But from your other post I gather you do not believe in redistribution of income.

I ask, is an inheritance actually income?

The usual definition of income, revolves around the awards for the factors of production ie/ land, labour, capital or enterprise. Broadly it takes on the form of wages, salaries, interest, dividends, or income in kind such as shares.
An inheritance, doesn't fit that definition. Furthermore, if the person hadn't died, there wouldn't be a liability for tax. The assets which form someone's estate are bought using net income after tax. Taxing an inheritance is in effect, double taxation.

As for redistribution of income, in broad terms:
No sir, I don't like it.

http://www.janegoodwin.net/wp-conten...12/mrhorse.jpg

There is a case to be made for genuine disability or genuine unemployment, but especially for the latter, it should only be a safety net (and cut off after a certain period).
22nd February 2010, 00:21
Lousada

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

I have a very big problem with this line of thinking. And your line of thinking seems to be gaining popularity quite rapidly. That scares the hell out of me.

Equal opportuninties does not guaruntee equal results. But by FORCING equal results you are DESTROYING equal rights.

I said equal opportunities, not equal results. If I meant equal results I would have said equal results and not equal opportunities. You draw a conclusion where there is none.
22nd February 2010, 00:28
Lousada

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

I ask, is an inheritance actually income?

The usual definition of income, revolves around the awards for the factors of production ie/ land, labour, capital or enterprise. Broadly it takes on the form of wages, salaries, interest, dividends, or income in kind such as shares.

An inheritance is a form of capital transfer.

Quote:

An inheritance, doesn't fit that definition. Furthermore, if the person hadn't died, there wouldn't be a liability for tax. The assets which form someone's estate are bought using net income after tax. Taxing an inheritance is in effect, double taxation.

Maybe inheritance tax is calculated differently in the UK. Over here the inheritance tax is calculated individually at the inheritors. So if the person hadn't died, of course there is no liability for tax because there is no capital transfer.
It's only double taxation if you view it from the goods perspective. Individually the first time it is taxed is at the deceased, the second time at the inheritor. So one person only pays tax over it once.
22nd February 2010, 00:44
Rollo

Specifically an inheritance is a non-voluntary, not-for-profit, form of capital transfer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lousada

It's only double taxation if you view it from the goods perspective. Individually the first time it is taxed is at the deceased, the second time at the inheritor. So one person only pays tax over it once.

If you had a daughter and you gave her a motor car, should she pay tax on it? If not, then if you were to die, is that mechanically different. Same car, going to the same person.
You've already paid the applicable sales taxes on it, why then should she be subject to an additional tax just because you've died.

A similar argument exists for the payment of dividends by private companies. If they pay a dividend from a franked source, why then should you be liable again for that income.
22nd February 2010, 01:15
Lousada

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Specifically an inheritance is a non-voluntary, not-for-profit, form of capital transfer.

An inheritance is voluntary because you can refuse it.

Quote:

If you had a daughter and you gave her a motor car, should she pay tax on it? If not, then if you were to die, is that mechanically different. Same car, going to the same person.
You've already paid the applicable sales taxes on it, why then should she be subject to an additional tax just because you've died.

Yes I think gifts should be taxed exactly the same as an inheritance. But I would advocate for a taxfree level. Over here, the first 5000 euros of a gift or inheritance are taxfree (there are some more special exemptions for various family members and so on). In my opinion this is fair enough.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page