To disagree with inheritance as a concept

[HeadsDownThumbsUp]

Just that. I think it's odd that the concept of inheritance is barely questioned in our society.

I don't think that anyone can really talk about social mobility in a meaningful way, or interrogate the class system, while wealth is still inherited.

Inheritance IS the class system.

In my opinion, inherited wealth is incompatible with a meritocratic society. It is also add odds with entrepreneurialism, and more generally the notion that wealth is earned through hard work, and thus deserved.

Thoughts?

"She won't do it because it's not natural" So true. We are in the same situation. Can't even get my parents to do up their bathroom and buy a dishwasher.

Crumbled, no need to apologise. Of course you are not a twit. I apologise, I thought I was replying to another poster, not you. I agree with everything you are saying about family etc.

Monty - sorry if you read this as arrogant - I just thought I'd start a kick around conversation about a topic that doesn't get that much frank discussion. I'm not trying to exclude anyone from any discussion and am sorry if it came across that way.

MorrisZap- you are right that the house issue is the most difficult and emotive issue around inheritance tax. I guess most of the strategies that people already have to deal with that are emotionally and financial unsatisfying in one way or another. But these are already fraught issues - and I don't see why they preclude rethinking inheritance as a concept entirely.

I suppose though, that the role of inherited wealth also does a great deal to support house prices. Certainly, most people wouldn't be able to buy houses at the prices they are these days without inherited wealth from parents or grandparents - so people end up unable to buy property without inheriting money, and people end up unable to pass on their money without selling it. I can't see how it does society as a whole much good to have the vast majority of individual and family wealth tied up in this way - not least the people who will never afford to buy property.

LessMissAbs - you've put that much more convincingly and succinctly than I have. I think it's bizarre that earned income is taxed so highly compared to unearned/inherited wealth. To be honest, I think there are strong arguments against inheritance from both the left and right of the political spectrum - so I don't understand why there's such a silent consensus supporting it.

"Can't even get my parents to do up their bathroom and buy a dishwasher."

Spot on, and it is about love and family, the greatest values of humanity.
Parents realise that their time will pass and they want to help and hand over something they hve earned and achieved during their short lifespan to their loved ones and family. That is natural and human and systems that try to prevent that are inhuman.

I'd quite like to have a revolution now though. Vive la famille!

"I think it's bizarre that earned income is taxed so highly compared to unearned/inherited wealth. "

Are you forgetting that it's already been taxed once? And if you've earned and paid tax, and then saved, then you've paid tax on it twice? Taxing it three times is highway robbery.

Crumbled, the majority would all be with you. It's only a small ragtag of communist types who would oppose us.

Vive la famille!

How ironic that on this site we are in the minority. Shome mistake shurely.

Yanbu.

On Cameron, Plenty- if Cameron was motivated by money he wouldn't have gone into politics. You can earn more money climbing the ladder in almost any other career. Ever noticed how so many people in politics are rich? I think it might've something to do with the fact that to get into politics you often work for free or very little - and only the rich can afford to work for free.

Anyway, interesting thread!

Lots of talk about people working hard, paying their taxes and then passing on money to family. Lots of people work very hard, the poorer/average person often paying proportionally more tax than the very rich - and many either inherit no money or have no money to pass on. Is that fair? Or is it fair that a lazy person who never works inherits millions? Like most things in life, inheritance is more about luck than what is fair.

I stand to inherit a chunk. Why should I get it? I didn't work for it.

Crumbled - I am so touched that you love my children and would die for them! Like I said, I'm not convinced by evolutionary psychology, and I think this part of the conversation between us isn't likely to get any further.

I also think the notion of 'double taxation' on inheritance is silly. After all, why should you pay VAT when you've already paid income tax? Council tax out of your already taxed income? All money is taxed again and again as it goes around the economy. Inheritance tax is not special in this regard. Besides, the recipient has not been taxed for it before.

Richman "Cultural inheritance doesn't impact everyone equally though." Absolutely, it's impossible to argue that it does. It does have more of a positive influence on the rest of society than inherited capital though - even if it is very diffuse - so I'd still say it is preferable.

I'm going to have to call it a night for now. I'll read again tomorrow.

Crumbled, there has been brainwashing going on and it may have affected some Guardian readers, but I am glad to see that on this thread, the vast majority of posters don't agree with the OP.

I agree with the person up thread who suggested it might be more sensible for baby boomers to help out there kids while younger rather than wait until they die and their kids are middle aged.

'I stand to inherit a chunk. Why should I get it? I didn't work for it.'

Because your parents worked for it. Your family is the unit that counts, not just you, and it won't be just you who benefits from what your parents earned, but your children will benefit from what their grandparents earned during their lifetime.

History is a thread of continuity and the nation has liberties today that were won by past generations. We have inherited what our forebears fought for and created. The family is the same, it also inherits from its former members, sometimes even those who lived centuries ago.

Ha heads down I think you missed my footnote!

It doesn't matter if the recipient hasn't been taxed on it before. It's been taxed twice, and if the giver isn't able to pass it on, it's the equivalent of a tax on the giver. The VAT thing is beyond irrelevant.

Actually claig I think you're right and I haven't been paying attention to the vox populi.

Churchill was only Churchill because of his family and his ancestors who lived centuries ago. Had his family not had that history, then he would probably never have led the country and achieved so much.

History matters, inheritance matters and family matters.

Inheritance tax is 40% which is high enough surely? My father has recently died, and so we are going through probate. For my siblings and I to keep pictures, furniture etc a chunk of stuff will have to be sold. Which is a bit sad really. It is not a tax on us as recipients btw, it is a tax on the estate. It is disproportionately levied on the wealthy as smaller estates are not liable. In theory I think this is right and appropriate, but when it is your childhood home being sold it does feel a bit rough because although my parents in turn inherited from their families most of the wealth is down to my father's hard work and he worked hard primarily for us, his family.

Now I agree that coming into funds you've not personally earned, especially when you are young and foolish can be a bad thing, but if you are pro- entrepreneurship it seems daft not to recognise that building wealth for your children and their children is a strong driver for many many people. If you are barred from passing wealth down the generations then why bother really?

I'm also not totally convinced that countries that tax at death more highly are any more equal than those that don't. The UK and the States have amongst the highest death duties and the biggest income disparities. Sweden, which has much lower income disparity (and is highly competitive) has no inheritance tax.

Inheritance tax is 40% only on the part of the estate worth over 325k, not the whole estate. People who do tax planning are often able to legally avoid it anyway.

Tax planning depends on how accurately you can predict when you are going to die though, which isn't really something that many people are particularly comfortable doing. e.g. selling your home 7 years before you die and giving away the money isn't for most people ideal. I just think it's one of those things that in theory seems an easy tax (which is fundamentally why it is one of the oldest levies) but in practice happens at a time when you are in a lot of pain anyway, so it feels very unkind. I totally acknowledge that I'm in a privileged position either way.

But I also would not say that acquiring/having money is a sign of moral fibre. Often it is quite the opposite!

Op, yanbu, but ultimately, we humans are selfish, and inheritance is a selfish act (although not all would agree that selfishness is bad)

I dont think inheritance demotivates people at all. I do believe that what I earn is mine after tax has been paid and anything left after my death should be disposed of as I see fit. I guess you are talking more about those with large estates and inherited fortunes but really, over the generations the same principles have applied to them as to Mr and Mrs working class who leave £1000 and a Wedgewood plate.It is undemocratic to have one law for the rich and one for rhe poor.Inheritance tax is sufficient.
My dc will inherit very little from us but we want what there is to be theirs.

Interesting. I'm not sure what I think, but do agree that if we are looking at ideas like increasing social equality and mobility, then it does seem odd to miss out thinking about inheritance as one of the great 'unlevelers', alongside a lot of other factors.

On very first thought I tend to agree with lessmissabs - in principle, I think I'd like to see lower tax on earnings and higher inheritance tax on unearned wealth (ie unearned by inheriting individual).

Not sure how that balances up economically or thought through implications, implementation etc. Really, it's about getting enough tax for functions in society - so don't see why it's any 'fairer' to get the majority of that from earners than people who have happened to inherit through no action of their own.

Agree that would in no way address things like nepotism, difference in education opportunities etc, which must also be impt.

I agree with the idea that wealth should be passed on during a lifetime, but that's not always possible.

As someone else up thread said, most people's wealth is in their house, they can't pass that down while they still need to live in it. And it still depends on personal choice.

Shouldn't we have the freedom to choose how we pass on what we own in a free society?

I don't see how we can maintain this free society if people are told what they have to do with their own property and belongings. It's just too fundamental a choice to take away from people. It would lead to corruption anyway, because you simply can't stop people doing what their humanity has programmed them to do. They will find ways to give their own offspring an advantage, and the result could end up with more unfairness.

The state get another 40% of any inheritance - above a certain level- do you really think they should get all of it.

Some people have trust funds etc and avoid inheritance any tax inc the Rotal Family- that, as should all tax avoidance methods, be addressed urgently.

There are 2 things here, firstly that it's nearly every parent's deepest instinct to pass on things to their children (and taking it away rewards grasshopper lifestyles over responsible ones) but secondly the problem in capitalist society that it helps the rich get richer.

I think the current system - a reasonable limit that is tax free plus anything over that taxed - is a good compromise.

I would go after the ways of avoiding inheritance tax though.