I'm sick to death of being taxed to death !

Godge

RayCun wrote: »

I'm well aware of how much I have benefited from the work of my parents, and the advantages it has given me in my life.

People often argue against taxation - even in this thread - by saying that society should not be taking away from those who work hard, that it should reward success. The people making this argument often like to imagine that their own success is simply based on merit - that they have worked harder and been smarter than other people, and that is why they deserve what they have (and how dare anyone try to take it away in tax!)

I know that I have worked hard, that I have been smart, but I also know that I had the conditions where that would be rewarded, and that I didn't have to work hard and be smart all the time, that sometimes I was carried. There are plenty of people who work as hard or harder than me, but have less. There are plenty of people who are as smart, or would be as smart if they had the opportunities that I've had.

So I think any society that takes the idea of meritocracy seriously should takes steps to address starting inequalities. To ensure that kids born without should still get support and opportunities, and that kids born into wealth can't just coast on that luck.

Which means paying for good public schools, and good public hospitals, and good public housing, so everyone gets a decent start. And that means raising money through taxation. And one of the absolute fairest ways to raise money through taxation is to tax inheritance, since that is money that was in no way earned by the people receiving it.

Excellent post, you have probably described best there a social democracy in a capitalist system.

Everyone should get a chance in life, unearned income and wealth should be taxed more heavily than earned income, excess consumption should also be taxed through VAT on luxury goods.

We have got some of it right, but a lot of it wrong, in our taxation and expenditure mix.

kuntboy

The worst thing about the Irish taxation system is how much is wasted.

RedPandaDan

NovemberJersey wrote: »

You'd hear some people complaining about paying tax, they're probably only in the lower income tax bracket anyway, then just because you've got well off parents those same people expect you to pay inheritance tax which would equate to more than the income tax they'd pay over their lifetime

Yes, people who work for a living have a problem with preferential tax treatment being given to people who receive unearned windfalls from wealthy relatives, especially when the amount of money they are receiving in this windfall is so large the tax "would equate to more than the income tax they'd pay over their lifetime".

holyhead

RayCun wrote: »

Yeah, and my parents worked so that I would live in a nice area, go to a good school, go on holidays abroad, go to college, have some help getting started in a house, etc, etc and so on, all the things that I do for my own kids.

And when they die, my parents will leave me and my siblings an inheritance, and we will receive up to 300k each tax-free and only pay tax on anything more than that - so my parents will be leaving plenty behind for the next generation, just as I will do for my kids.

But why is it in the interests of the state or society that, as well as all the advantages I had growing up because of my parents, my inheritance, no matter how much it is, should be tax-free?

The state has already benefitted because

1. Chances are if they were able to pass on a financial legacy to you they were most likely not a financial burden to the state.
2. If its a house they pass on to you they relieve the state of having to house you.
3. If its a business they pass on they relieve the state of having to hand you out social welfare on a weekly basis. Also if its a business chances are they employed people. If you keep the business going then you hopefully get to keep those people employed etc. Keeping them in employment prevents the state from having to support those people etc.

I can understand double taxation whereby you are taxed on your income and pay vat in the shop. I get that. In the case of the inheritance of a business though inheritance tax is potentially a triple of case of taxation.

holyhead

RedPandaDan wrote: »

Yes, people who work for a living have a problem with preferential tax treatment being given to people who receive unearned windfalls from wealthy relatives, especially when the amount of money they are receiving in this windfall is so large the tax "would equate to more than the income tax they'd pay over their lifetime".

By this logic, which I understand to a point a person would be peed off because the state pays dole money to the unemployed. There is a good chance that if someone did inherit a largesse as you describe their parents are most likely have paid paid more tax than most working people would ordinarily do. Inheritance tax isn't some last ditched attempt tax to catch people who've never paid tax. In building up an inheritance they have paid tax.

Is a family home exempt from inheritance and if not what is the threshold?

worded

The OP is a hissing goose !

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21596672-traditional-ways-raising-tax-do-not-work-well-globalised-world-plucking-geese

RayCun

NovemberJersey wrote: »

then just because you've got well off parents those same people expect you to pay inheritance tax which would equate to more than the income tax they'd pay over their lifetime

or, to put it another way, just because you have well-off parents, you are going to get given to you an inheritance more than many people will earn in their lifetime.

RayCun

holyhead wrote: »

I can understand double taxation whereby you are taxed on your income and pay vat in the shop. I get that. In the case of the inheritance of a business though inheritance tax is potentially a triple of case of taxation.

You keep ignoring the fact that in the case of inheritance tax, you are only paying tax once.

and that only on inheritances over 300k

FreudianSlippers

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If you're going to post a link to a document, at least read it first.

I'm familiar with the document.

NovemberJersey

For anyone who's interested in shielding their wealth from the various scavengers out there have a read of this, the article talks about how farmers can benefit from setting up companies but I'd presume the rules are the same for non farmers with companies too, long story short your able to take out €750,000 totally tax free from your company if your aged between 55 - 65

http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/schemes/would-having-a-limited-status-benefit-your-farm-35099838.html

RayCun

Man who inherited farm worth millions worries about how to shield his wealth from scavengers :rolleyes:

holyhead

RayCun wrote: »

You keep ignoring the fact that in the case of inheritance tax, you are only paying tax once.

and that only on inheritances over 300k

In isolation yes inheritance tax is a once off but the inheritance was already subject to tax in its accumulation whilst the accumulator was alive.

NovemberJersey

RayCun wrote: »

Man who inherited farm worth millions worries about how to shield his wealth from scavengers :rolleyes:

I'm enjoying our debate here but what would you suggest happens to farmers sons who inherit the business, or for that matter what do you think should happen to someone who inherits a hotel worth we'll say €10,000,000 - should that hotelier be subject to 33% inheritance tax and have to sell their family business aswell then to pay more taxes just?

A big issue I've got with paying so much tax is the way how the money gets spent makes a mockery of my hard work, I'm up at 5am every day getting sh** on by cows and I've to give more than half of what I earn away

y0ssar1an22

in my case, and gonna presume the same applies to others, my parents have savings build up over their life. they didn't piss it away in the pub, they never went on holidays, drove modest cars, no sky, no 43" flat screens. pretty much everything they have done was for me and my siblings - to pass stuff onto us.
some people choose to live a flamboyant life, other choose to save for their children. why should they (or the beneficiary) be taxed for that?

and we need to accept that there will be inequality. trying to put everyone on a level playing filed doesn't work.

NovemberJersey

People keep insinuating I've this awful sense of entitlement, my farm has been in my family for 200 years, all I want is to be able to make a half decent living off it and pass it on to my own son, that's not a whole pile to ask for

RayCun

holyhead wrote: »

In isolation yes inheritance tax is a once off but the inheritance was already subject to tax in its accumulation whilst the accumulator was alive.

A different person paid tax on this money.
Then you get this money, and you pay tax on it.

That is not double taxation. You are only paying tax once.

RedPandaDan

holyhead wrote: »

In isolation yes inheritance tax is a once off but the inheritance was already subject to tax in its accumulation whilst the accumulator was alive.

Ok, lets take a scenario.

My rich relative works for his money, he pays income tax on the money he earns and has 100k in the bank.

My rich relative then hires me to do some errands for him. He pays me 50 grand for doing these errands.

I pay income tax on the money I earned.

The very next day, my relative dies and leaves the remaining 50 grand to my identical twin brother, who has been spending this whole time watching netflix.

My question:

If he is taxed the same amount for his 50k that I was taxed on my 50k, how is it that he is being taxed twice but I am not?

NovemberJersey

RedPandaDan wrote: »

Ok, lets take a scenario.

My rich relative works for his money, he pays income tax on the money he earns and has 100k in the bank.

My rich relative then hires me to do some errands for him. He pays me 50 grand for doing these errands.

I pay income tax on the money I earned.

The very next day, my relative dies and leaves the remaining 50 grand to my identical twin brother, who has been spending this whole time watching netflix.

My question:

If he is taxed the same amount for his 50k that I was taxed on my 50k, how is it that he is being taxed twice but I am not?

I've a question for you - if someone inherits a hotel worth €10,000,000 do you want them to have to sell their business so that they can come up with the €3,333,000 inheritance tax?

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm familiar with the document.

Then you will know that it doesn't contain the words 'middle' or 'class'. Therefore, it doesn't answer the question I asked you. Again, please define what you mean by 'middle class' in an Irish context.

MeatTwoVeg

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

and we need to accept that there will be inequality. trying to put everyone on a level playing filed doesn't work.

What a convenient moral outlook to hold.

Professor Moriarty

NovemberJersey wrote: »

People keep insinuating I've this awful sense of entitlement, my farm has been in my family for 200 years, all I want is to be able to make a half decent living off it and pass it on to my own son, that's not a whole pile to ask for

With respect, I certainly wasn't insinuating that, I was stating it as fact.

NovemberJersey

Is anyone going to answer my question above?

NovemberJersey

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

With respect, I certainly wasn't insinuating that, I was stating it as fact.

Lucky for me your not the king of the world and don't get to make taxation laws etc

RayCun

NovemberJersey wrote: »

I'm enjoying our debate here but what would you suggest happens to farmers sons who inherit the business, or for that matter what do you think should happen to someone who inherits a hotel worth we'll say €10,000,000 - should that hotelier be subject to 33% inheritance tax and have to sell their family business aswell then to pay more taxes just?

I've explained this at least twice in this thread already, but third time lucky.

If someone inherits a hotel worth €10,000,000, they will have to pay tax on it of €3,000,000.
€3,000,000 is a lot of money, but - follow closely here - it is a lot less than €10,000,000.

If you have an asset worth €10,000,000, you can get a loan to pay off the tax. Yes, you will have to pay that loan off, but you have an asset worth €10,000,000 generating money that you can use to pay the loan.

Or there is always the option of selling that hotel for €10,000,000 and walking away with €7,000,000 in your pocket.

That's a really ****ing tough choice. And the poor sod making this choice - walk away with 7 million or keep the 10 million hotel but have to pay back a loan - didn't have to do anything to get these options. Didn't have to work hard, or at all, didn't have to get an education, pursue a career, produce wealth, employ people, invent things... or any of the other reasons that are offered up as justification for some people being rich while others are poor. All they had to do was be born to the right parents.

NovemberJersey wrote: »

A big issue I've got with paying so much tax is the way how the money gets spent makes a mockery of my hard work, I'm up at 5am every day getting sh** on by cows and I've to give more than half of what I earn away

People seem to be unclear about what inheritance tax means. It is tax applied to the people who inherit an estate.

You say you've worked hard, got up at 5 every day, etc etc... well, guess what, no-one is taking your farm away from you.

But when you die, why should your son - who might spend all day playing on the x-box for all I know or the law cares - get an asset worth millions and not have to pay tax?

Professor Moriarty

NovemberJersey wrote: »

I've a question for you - if someone inherits a hotel worth €10,000,000 do you want them to have to sell their business so that they can come up with the €3,333,000 inheritance tax?

Get a loan against the asset and pay it off over an appropriate number of years. Or sell the hotel and walk away with 6,700,000 euros.

Professor Moriarty

NovemberJersey wrote: »

Lucky for me your not the king of the world and don't get to make taxation laws etc

I'm not that bad!

RedPandaDan

NovemberJersey wrote: »

I've a question for you - if someone inherits a hotel worth €10,000,000 do you want them to have to sell their business so that they can come up with the €3,333,000 inheritance tax?

If they don't have the money on hand, then one of two things will happen:

1 - They borrow the money for it and pay the loan back with the returns from the hotel. They now own a hotel.
2 - They sell the hotel and walk away with millions of euro after tax.

Either way, the inheritor of the hotel is set for life.

NovemberJersey

RayCun wrote: »

I've explained this at least twice in this thread already, but third time lucky.

If someone inherits a hotel worth €10,000,000, they will have to pay tax on it of €3,000,000.
€3,000,000 is a lot of money, but - follow closely here - it is a lot less than €10,000,000.

If you have an asset worth €10,000,000, you can get a loan to pay off the tax. Yes, you will have to pay that loan off, but you have an asset worth €10,000,000 generating money that you can use to pay the loan.

Or there is always the option of selling that hotel for €10,000,000 and walking away with €7,000,000 in your pocket.

That's a really ****ing tough choice. And the poor sod making this choice - walk away with 7 million or keep the 10 million hotel but have to pay back a loan - didn't have to do anything to get these options. Didn't have to work hard, or at all, didn't have to get an education, pursue a career, produce wealth, employ people, invent things... or any of the other reasons that are offered up as justification for some people being rich while others are poor. All they had to do was be born to the right parents.



People seem to be unclear about what inheritance tax means. It is tax applied to the people who inherit an estate.

You say you've worked hard, got up at 5 every day, etc etc... well, guess what, no-one is taking your farm away from you.

But when you die, why should your son - who might spend all day playing on the x-box for all I know or the law cares - get an asset worth millions and not have to pay tax?

I suppose we're both standing on opposite sides of the fence and are never going to agree with eachother but I respect your opinion… if you were in my shoes though it's not like you'd want your heir to be burdoned with millions of euros in inheritance tax? Over in NZ they've got all these mad laws about inheritance tax, they're doing a fairly bang on job of driving farmers off the land - the mostly Australian banks who were loaning money to NZ farmers over the last while were worrying about totally collapsing due to the farmers totally inability to pay back all the money they had to borrow over the inheritance tax laws

RayCun

NovemberJersey wrote: »

I suppose we're both standing on opposite sides of the fence and are never going to agree with eachother but I respect your opinion… if you were in my shoes though it's not like you'd want your heir to be burdoned with millions of euros in inheritance tax?

The only way my heir(s) will be burdened with millions of euro in inheritance tax is if their inheritance is worth many millions more than that. If they inherit 10 million and pay 3 million in tax, they are not 'burdened', they are suddenly 7 million euro wealthier than they were.

TeaBagMania

and the state is now 3M richer for doing absolutely nothing
can the property not be put into a trust and have the children added to the trust when they become of age? siblings will be added as they become of age and grandparents will fall off as they die, the trust will live forever and never change hands in theory

holyhead

RayCun wrote: »

A different person paid tax on this money.
Then you get this money, and you pay tax on it.

That is not double taxation. You are only paying tax once.

Lets say you inherit the building your running your business out of. Lets also you say don't have the personal wealth to meet the inheritance demand from the revenue. If you take the money out of the business to meet this demand you will be heavily taxed in doing so plus having to pay inheritance tax.

Any accumulation of wealth which has been done so lawfully and properly subjected to tax should not be off any interest to the state when it is passed on. It is none of the states business what a private individual bequeaths to another again assuming all taxes were paid accordingly. The state did not create the wealth the individual did.

Consider this. The building inherited in the above scenario is facilitating a business which pays corporation tax, vat, prsi, rates, employing people etc.

Many a business has been created not only to support a family but to give the next generation of that family the means to earn a living themselves. What right does the state have to take a portion of what is passed on? I can understand income tax, corporation tax and vat, water charges but beyond that I really do wonder. I can partially understand capital gains. Not so much in how it works but the logic behind it.

NovemberJersey

TeaBagMania wrote: »

and the state is now 3M richer for doing absolutely nothing
can the property not be put into a trust and have the children added to the trust when they become of age? siblings will be added as they become of age and grandparents will fall off as they die, the trust will live forever and never change hands in theory

Yeah I think that's what the aristocracy do over in England to hold onto their assets

Bandana boy

NovemberJersey wrote: »

Your actually embarrassing yourself. You think that I'm getting paid 1/3 more now than I was at the start of the year? That graph doesn't represent what our co ops are paying us for our milk, it's like if the price of food increases in shops it's not like the farmer is the one getting the extra money, I wish what you were saying was right though and we were getting paid all this extra money !

Only for the "Single Farm Payment" grant of €47,000 that I get off the EU every year I'd be long gone out of business

Your posts are very puzzling to me
I pay too much tax down with tax
-but then a grant (which comes from tax !) of 47k is keeping me afloat ,hooray for tax its only thing keeping farming alive


I have an asset worth several million but I would be better of not working dole scroungers have a better quality of life .
Why not sell your asset worth lets say 2.5M
Pay your self a salary of 84K a year(with no interest on the asset accounted for) for the next 30 years and without working a minute have the life of Riley . or go get a low level job around 30K a year and still be in the richest 2-3% in the country.

I agree Taxation is too high and we need to lower it by lowering the spend , by the sounds of it first stop should be those farming grants , with assets of millions they still want hand outs

RayCun

holyhead wrote: »

Lets say you inherit the building your running your business out of. Lets also you say don't have the personal wealth to meet the inheritance demand from the revenue. If you take the money out of the business to meet this demand you will be heavily taxed in doing so plus having to pay inheritance tax.

So I don't take the money out of the business, I get a loan.
If I was buying a business like this outright, I would have to get a much, much bigger loan, but since I am inheriting the business and only paying some tax on the inheritance, the loan I need is much smaller.

The outcome is that I am much better off than I was before, for no effort on my part.

holyhead wrote: »

Any accumulation of wealth which has been done so lawfully and properly subjected to tax should not be off any interest to the state when it is passed on.

One might as well say, "any income which has been lawfully earned should be of no interest to the state"
If we agree that the state should be funded, we must ask how it should be funded.

Income tax discourages work.
Sales taxes discourage sales.
Wealth taxes discourage work.

In all of those cases the tax is on an activity that we want people to do, and the tax, it could plausibly be argued, discourages that activity.

Me inheriting something (or receiving a gift) is not valuable economic activity that should be protected. I am not going to refuse an inheritance because it is taxable - I am still better off inheriting and paying the tax, especially since there is no effort to me in inheriting.

holyhead wrote: »

The state did not create the wealth the individual did.

The individual inheriting is the one paying the tax, and the individual inheriting didn't create anything.

TeaBagMania

One of the beauties I liked about retiring to Ireland was the lack of property tax, a few years ago that changed for you guys (as if you weren't taxed enough)

Just wait until that scam gets into full swing.

I currently pay $1700 a year on average house in the states of which $900 goes to the public school system (I don't have any kids) and almost $200 goes to a public library I don’t use. Nothing like paying for services you don't use

Professor Moriarty

TeaBagMania wrote: »

One of the beauties I liked about retiring to Ireland was the lack of property tax, a few years ago that changed for you guys (as if you weren't taxed enough)

Just wait until that scam gets into full swing.

I currently pay $1700 a year on average house in the states of which $900 goes to the public school system (I don't have any kids) and almost $200 goes to a public library I don’t use. Nothing like paying for services you don't use

Let's hope your house never catches fire or you don't need a policeman.

FreudianSlippers

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Then you will know that it doesn't contain the words 'middle' or 'class'. Therefore, it doesn't answer the question I asked you. Again, please define what you mean by 'middle class' in an Irish context.

It has both the mean and median as well as a band. Yes, they do no directly use those phrases, but had you read the document rather than try to point-score, you'd see they're defining it quite clearly.

The CSO also has plenty of statistics, but they seem to range it from gross €32k-€50k with the mean on a slightly higher scale as a result of some skewing.

Are you accepting there is no such thing in economics and statistics as "middle class" and it's all a matter of perception?

MeatTwoVeg

TeaBagMania wrote: »

One of the beauties I liked about retiring to Ireland was the lack of property tax, a few years ago that changed for you guys (as if you weren't taxed enough)

Just wait until that scam gets into full swing.

I currently pay $1700 a year on average house in the states of which $900 goes to the public school system (I don't have any kids) and almost $200 goes to a public library I don’t use. Nothing like paying for services you don't use

Why don't you take up reading and have some kids?

holyhead

RayCun wrote: »

So I don't take the money out of the business, I get a loan.
If I was buying a business like this outright, I would have to get a much, much bigger loan, but since I am inheriting the business and only paying some tax on the inheritance, the loan I need is much smaller.

The outcome is that I am much better off than I was before, for no effort on my part.



One might as well say, "any income which has been lawfully earned should be of no interest to the state"
If we agree that the state should be funded, we must ask how it should be funded.

Income tax discourages work.
Sales taxes discourage sales.
Wealth taxes discourage work.

In all of those cases the tax is on an activity that we want people to do, and the tax, it could plausibly be argued, discourages that activity.

Me inheriting something (or receiving a gift) is not valuable economic activity that should be protected. I am not going to refuse an inheritance because it is taxable - I am still better off inheriting and paying the tax, especially since there is no effort to me in inheriting.

The individual inheriting is the one paying the tax, and the individual inheriting didn't create anything.

The flaw in your logic, as I see it, is that you are assuming that the son was in some hippie commune, got a call Monday morning to say ok son your Dad is dead and you are now inheriting the business and the property.

That is not the scenario I outlined. In the case of a Father and Son working a business, working as a team, building the business up together, the son is effectively punished for his Dad dying. He is punished for his Dad putting in place the means for him to make a living.

As for needing to take a loan out. Why should you have to do that when wealth the Father and Son created is in the business, has already been subjected to tax and should be accessible to them to use in the event of inheritance tax. (Assuming there was liquid cash in the business).

I completely understand income tax and vat etc. I do also understand that the State needs revenue to meet its running costs.

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It has both the mean and median as well as a band. Yes, they do no directly use those phrases, but had you read the document rather than try to point-score, you'd see they're defining it quite clearly.

The CSO also has plenty of statistics, but they seem to range it from gross €32k-€50k with the mean on a slightly higher scale as a result of some skewing.

Are you accepting there is no such thing in economics and statistics as "middle class" and it's all a matter of perception?

No. I asked you to define what you meant by 'middle class' in an Irish context. You responded by linking to a document that didn't define the term or even contain the words. If you consider, when I point this out, that I'm point scoring, then you need to re-evaluate your understanding of discussion and fact.

Anyhoo, my understanding of middle class is people on a higher income than 32-50k. In my opinion I would say that middle class is the class below very wealthy so anybody over 70k is 'middle class'

TeaBagMania

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Let's hope your house never catches fire or you don't need a policeman.

not a great comparison, those services I could potentially use. hope I never need them

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Why don't you take up reading and have some kids?

I don't need a library to read and I will never have kids

MeatTwoVeg

TeaBagMania wrote: »

not a great comparison, those services I could potentially use. hope I never need them

I don't need a library to read and I will never have kids

Perhaps the taxation and funding policies could be designed around your personal circumstances?

TeaBagMania

that would be great and I doubt few would argue about being forced to pay for something they don't need or use

marienbad

TeaBagMania wrote: »

that would be great and I doubt few would argue about being forced to pay for something they don't need or use

Of course we could argue that point , it happens all the time . And not just in tax matters but in products, services, etc .

Swings and roundabouts

RayCun

holyhead wrote: »

The flaw in your logic, as I see it, is that you are assuming that the son was in some hippie commune, got a call Monday morning to say ok son your Dad is dead and you are now inheriting the business and the property.

No, I don't assume that. The laws on inheritance tax don't distinguish between a hardworking child or a lazy child. You may say it isn't fair that a hardworking child pays X, but the effect of what you propose is that a lazy child wouldn't pay X either.
In any case...

holyhead wrote: »

That is not the scenario I outlined. In the case of a Father and Son working a business, working as a team, building the business up together, the son is effectively punished for his Dad dying. He is punished for his Dad putting in place the means for him to make a living.

... if the father and son are equal partners in a firm, as you suggest, then the son already owns half of the firm. If the firm is worth a million euro and the son inherits half, then he pays 66k inheritance tax.

And let's look at what happens.
On Monday, the son has a 50% share in a business worth a million euro. He has a net wealth of 500k.
On Friday, the son has 100% share in a business worth a million euro, and a tax liability of 66k. He has a net wealth of 934k.

The son became almost half a million euro richer overnight, and you call this punishment?

holyhead wrote: »

As for needing to take a loan out. Why should you have to do that when wealth the Father and Son created is in the business, has already been subjected to tax and should be accessible to them to use in the event of inheritance tax. (Assuming there was liquid cash in the business).

Let's look at two businesses.
Bloggs and Son are a family-owned butchers. Father and son work together, and they have two butchers shops, each worth 500k.
Joe Smith owns a fishmongers. One premises, worth about 500k.
Everyone works hard :rolleyes:

Joe Smith wants to expand his business and buy a second shop. How does he do that? He goes to the bank and gets a loan. He buys a second fishmongers, now has two premises, total value of 1,000,000 euro, and an outstanding loan of 500k to pay off.

Daddy Bloggs dies one day. Kid Bloggs now owns two premises, each worth 500k, and has to take out a loan of 66k to pay the inheritance tax.

Joe Smith had to take out a loan to buy a second shop. Kid Bloggs got a second shop by taking out a much smaller loan.

Is Kid Bloggs being punished in this situation? Or has he overnight become much wealthier than Joe Smith?

holyhead

Someone becoming wealthier after a bereavement doesn't make inheritance tax justifiable. It's a nonsense tax punishing the family of someone who has done well or left a legacy. Outside of regular income and corporation tax the state has no business in seeking to gain from someone's death.

RayCun

holyhead wrote: »

Someone becoming wealthier after a bereavement doesn't make inheritance tax justifiable. It's a nonsense tax punishing the family of someone who has done well or left a legacy.

Again, you describe people suddenly becoming much wealthier as 'punishment'

holyhead

RayCun wrote: »

Again, you describe people suddenly becoming much wealthier as 'punishment'

How else would describe handing over sums of money to the government for no reason?

Professor Moriarty

holyhead wrote: »

How else would describe handing over sums of money to the government for no reason?

The reason is wealth redistribution. It's wealth redistribution.

holyhead

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The reason is wealth redistribution. It's wealth redistribution.

Once you pay income tax and vat it's should be none of the states business.