Inherited house

knipex

1874 wrote: »

Well they didnt get it for nothing, for eg in the case of a parent to earn it , they will have contributed taxes during their lifetime, they will have raised a person to participate in society who is as likely to contribute as they, its less likely that child will sit on their laurels as an adult. The parent will have made family sacrifices too, to enable this situation to occur.

The person who earned it payed tax, should not the person who inherited it not also be taxed on income..

1874 wrote: »

I do think super wealth should be taxed to discourage huge generational wealth transfer, but this is the kind of thing that has occured and the ordinary working person is treated to the opportunity to pass what level is dictated to them.

Ahh so your are not against inheritance tax per say and do see the issue with inter-generational wealth transfer its just where that point of taxable non taxble is..

Where woudl you see it ? What number ?

200K ? 500k ? 1 million ? 10 million ? 100 Million ?

1874 wrote: »

The State has a history of wasting tax payers money, I think it is reasonable that a parent can pass an inheritance to a child tax free, up to a point, I think 500k is a starting point (and in the last decade it was around that level) but up to a million for people on average wages is not exceptional.

So 500K to 1 million..

Someone on an average industrial wage would have to save 20% of their gross (not net gross) pay for roughly 70 years to save 500K..

1874 wrote: »

Why would anyone be so opposed to passing earned wealth by a parent to their children, that they generated after taxation, after contributing to society already?
In a time when the State doesnt provide many of the essentials, why would a parent be forbidden to make arrangements to ensure their offspring wont be slaves to debt at the start of their lives? Im thinking , housing, education, healthcare.
The super wealthy who have wealth above that level can already have the means to reduce the ability of the State to access generated wealth as tax.
Why should those at the lower end of the scale be subjected to a high tax at a low entry level on their generated wealth?

Why not just make it 100% tax on 100% of generated wealth, because its just about taking as much as they can get without upsetting the apple cart so much it causes problems.

As for if it doesnt come from inheritance taxes, it will come form other taxation, well how about it coming from organisation, improvements, efficiency, rather than simply throwing taxpayers money at problems and still end up with bad services? because its not their money they are happy to spend it, who wouldnt.
On a household budget, when I didnt have money coming in at the same level as I had previously, I had to make cuts, I didnt go out and rob my neighbours to maintain a car or some luxury I couldnt afford, I made cuts in my spending where I could.

As mentioned, the services provided are often inefficient and wasteful, less money could be spent providing health, education and housing to a better standard if it wasn't for vested interests holding sway over those making decisions on how to spend OUR money.

Thats a whole different political argument..

1874

knipex wrote: »

The person who earned it payed tax, should not the person who inherited it not also be taxed on income..

Ahh so your are not against inheritance tax per say and do see the issue with inter-generational wealth transfer its just where that point of taxable non taxble is..

Where woudl you see it ? What number ?

200K ? 500k ? 1 million ? 10 million ? 100 Million ?

So 500K to 1 million..

Someone on an average industrial wage would have to save 20% of their gross (not net gross) pay for roughly 70 years to save 500K..

Thats a whole different political argument..

As I already said, I think 500k is a starting point, but up to 1 million. It has already been at or above that level (500k in the last decade), and if the State pursues policies or through inaction which drive property prices and other costs upwards, then I see no reason why people should be exempted from benefiting from generated wealth which is mainly on family residences and personal wealth, but given the states inability to provide reasonable access for those that are working and those that arent to affordable housing, given that services are ever going over to privately charges, then I see no reason why parents should not give a leg up in assistance to get their children from under the yoke of debt slavery, by passing on their generated wealth.

Im opposed to the fact that the super wealthy can avail of means to avoid inheritance tax and at levels which might mean they would not need to particpate in society or simply to further generate wealth, but those of more meagre means who may have had by hard work or by an accident of circumstance happen to fall into a category which prevents them from providing more for their offspring, their generated wealth which will improve their lot, instead of potentially being obligated to suck at the teat of the state.
Im sure the State is happy to be in that position of control over people and their finacial well being, so they can just fritter it in wasteful bureaucracy. Perhaps if people were not so distracted by the requirement to slave at employment they dont like (which many do) they could participate in something more purposeful they do like, or do something more beneficial for society, but a more educated, enlightened and less distracted and tired population may demand changes from the establishment, which will undermine those with their hands on the reigns.