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?

We could always become a communist autocracy amd have our money 'repatriated' to the state on our deathbed
Seriously though yabvvvu and jealous. I second the first person who said you aren't in line for one.

Regardless, there are a large body of people in this country who resent anyone having anything they don't and can't have. This is the same sentiment wrapped up in 'Guardian' speak.

what about possessions

give my DD my wedding engagement ring in reality worth about £450 but what if like princess catherines ring and worth 10,000 does the principle change and it has to be valued,

if I have photos of great grandmother fine but what if it is an oil painting can not that be inherited by family, personally I think family ( not just traditional ones) are the building blocks of soceity and so i generally agree with inheritance being free for first £XXXX then taxed at higher rate of tax

Geppa - OP has already said she is in line to inherit. Interesting that you can't conceive of someone in this position thinking whether there is a better way to do things that does not focus on just themselves!

heads - so are you going to give your inheritance to charity?

Basically what it comes down to for me is:

"It is mine, you can't have it".

What I have worked for is for my children (and any GCs).

It is very bloody selfish, but humans are. Am not at all sorry for this attitude.

If the OP does not wish to inherit she is free to donate the funds however she sees fit.

I think inheritance tax should be abolished. I have paid all of my taxes and chosen to save my money, why should I not be able to choose improving the quality of life and education prospects of my DC. They will pay more tax as they will be higher earners, that is social mobility.

I don't think this is selfish, sitting on your backside, not working and spending it before you get it is selfish.

Disagreeing with inheritance is just a other communist example of "I have fuck all and want to share it with you."

Someone said earlier that inheritance is a 'demotivator'.

Personal story here: my parents worked all their lives in low-paid jobs and came fom families that for generations had been classic 'working-class'. They just plugged away patiently and their one and only asset was their house, which my widowed grandmother scraped to buy with a mortgage in the 1950's and which by complete chance is in an area that many years later became desirable, as estate agents might say (btw my parents were still paying that mortgage 25 years later from my df's really pitiful wage).

They never had the luxury of an accountant, a tax planner, or any of the opportunities available to the wealthy; they just hoped that they could do their best for their family.

I grew up with very little in terms of possessions/frivolities and was the first person in my family to go to university. I now have a good and well-paid job that is up in the stratosphere compared to what my dear dm and df ever experienced. My dsis also has a career and our parents are massively proud.

Should dsis and I therefore not be allowed to inherit their house, their sole possession from many years of striving and the one material thing they have to give us (and want to give us), because it would be 'demotivating' and somehow damaging to our moral fibre for us to inherit their money?

The problem is that it's easy to look at the Duke of Westminster, say, as a random example, and decide that handing on vast wealth through generations is elitist and divisive. But there are lots of families like mine with just a bit - yes, admittedly, a decent chunk of money, but very far indeed from millions.

I'm a lifelong Guardian reader btw

The point about having paid all taxes already is a lazy one. We pay tax constantly on income that has had income tax applied to it in many different forms, it's just a case of where and how we decide to apply those taxes to achieve the revenues the country 'needs' for services (obvs people disagree about how large this need is)

For example, you buy a house and you pay stamp duty out of taxed income, which kicks in below the threshold for inheritance tax. VAT is double taxation etc etc. it's a case of deciding where this taxation should fall, not if it happens.

YABU when someone dies they should be allowed to pass their money and possessions to whoever they wish.

Personally I think supporting your family throughout their lifetimes is at least as important a concept as meritocracy or earning your resources through hard work.

It just isn't true anyway that those who work harder are better rewarded in society. Many work very hard doing essential work for their communities and are rewarded very poorly. This often isn't even based on logical or fair economics - for example I usually work with young children where it's been shown that investment in the type of work I do brings many rewards to society - both social and economic. But this benefit to society is not passed on to those of us working to bring about those benefits. (For every £1 invested studies have shown a x6 benefit to society as those children grow up and for example become tax payers and not criminals)

So, the bottom line is, as my Father used to say when we were growing up "Life's not fair" - and is not about to become so anytime soon.

In a meritocracy who looks after the vulnerable and even the less able ? Seems a good thing to me that wider concepts of caring for one another including within families are also strongly at work in our society.

I was thinking that Juggling in a meritocracy, those with few or any 'merits' would be shit out of luck wouldn't they?

if 'the state' hadnt come to mean corrupt wanky politicians but meant 'people' like babies in NICU, hospitals, schools, homeless people, in essence 'US'. it wouldnt feel so bad for 'the state' to receive inheritance tax and there would be none of this pissing up against the wal commentary.

Thats the main problem. I'd have no problem leaving my money to benefit society as a whole. If I had any.

Yes, thanks Morloth
A meritocracy may at first sound like a good idea, until you consider it in more detail. We are not all born with the same number of talents, this needs to be factored in at some point. It's not all about effort - some of it's about talent, and some of it's about choices and even luck !

Yup.

DH and I come from poor backgrounds and now we are rich.

Not just through hard work (though obviously there is a bit of that), but through being able to play the game, being smart, being able to plan and adapt etc.

Those are merits the ability to read people, and manipulate situations to your own advantage.

It would end up just as split as the current arrangement.

I inherited a lot of money I still work hard just like other people,I do so to make sure that when I die my children will never have to rely on the state for anything at least 5 of my children will need significant care for the rest of their lives and I would rather that care be the best I can afford rather than what ever the state can afford to give them.

There is a huge difference between someone from an aristocratic family inheriting millions plus a country estate and someone inheriting a small terraced house and a couple of ISAs. For a lot of people today (myself included), the only way they could possibly ever dream of owning a home is to inherit either the property itself or the money for a deposit. A friend of mine from a working-class family (grew up in council accommodation, always had to struggle for money, mum worked three jobs etc etc etc) inherited a lot of money from a second cousin who had never married or had kids. With it she was able to pay the rent on a bungalow for her elderly parents and put down a deposit on a nice house for her and her kids.
That certainly sounds like social mobility to me...

As for the expectation of inheritance being a demotivator and discouraging 'hard work', that just seems to suggest that the only jobs that count as 'hard work' are the ones where you can expect to earn a lot of money. FFS! Do we really have to have that discussion again??
Yes, solicitors and bankers work hard but so do teachers and nurses. And they earn a pittance. Why shouldn't they benefit from inherited wealth?

brillig it was me that said inheritance is a demotivator, however I'm not against it, quite the opposite. I do think though that the way DPs parents have gone about talking about inheritance to their children has been wrong. They have basically told them not to worry about money as they will inherit.

As pointed out above, this might become decimated by care home fees, DP and I could have children and then DP could die before his parents so that his children end up with nothing. The possibilities are endless as to why you can't count on inheritance.

I basically put DP straight and pointed out that if we are to get married I want us both to be paying into pensions, paying for life insurance, and all the other things he should be doing as a sensible adult. Now if he inherits it'll be an extra treat, not something he was depending on for retirement.

Also re. entrepreneurialism... To me, describing yourself as an entrepreneur is short-hand for 'I'm not going to get a normal job that might benefit the rest of society because that's just too boring for a wizz-kid like me'. Hardly the socialist utopia that the OP seems to be trying to advocate....

Also, not all entrepreneurs are Alan Sugar! The only reason he's so well-known is because he is the exception!!
Many many people attempt to start businesses every year. Most fail within the first year, leading to crippling debts.

I guess the point is that it's social mobility for the lucky ones who inherit. True it means those who do have a chance of owning a home, but at the expense of those who don't inherit as they get the chance to 'jump' the property ladder, keeping prices high, investing in buy-to-let etc.

I genuinely don't know how I feel about this so am playing devil's advocate, but it's possible that inheritance concentrates the wealth to fewer people, meaning that there is less to go round for lower paying jobs (the examples ephemeral gave were both in the public sector).

As I say, don't know how I feel, but it's an interesting thing to think about because it is one thing that tends to go unquestioned when there are huge debates about things like marginal changes to income tax etc.

I don't see that inheriting is demotivating though, unless you get lots when you're young, which has to be quite rare. If anything I think one of the stumbling blocks for higher inheritance tax would be that that is demotivating or that in practice it would reduce tax receipts as people spend it or think of new ways to avoid it.

I'd be interested to know from those who think inheritance tax should be abolished where the shortfall should be made up from? Spend less, tax more somewhere else?

ephemeral To me, describing yourself as an entrepreneur is short-hand for 'I'm not going to get a normal job that might benefit the rest of society because that's just too boring for a wizz-kid like me'

I think you might have been watching too much Apprentice .

entrepreneurs create jobs. seems kind of important to me.

Agree faster stronger. Jobs, and pay taxes that allow people to keep their inheritances and the public services they want!!

In theory I agree with the OP point. A 100% inheritance tax would solve the problem of what happens to assets. Maybe with tweaks to allow assets to pass to a spouse, or children to be provided for until they are 18.

In theory because in practice it would be fairly easy to get around, so doubt it's worth doing anything.

Where someone has lots of assets they can just convert it into a massive annuity and send the spare income to their children while the live, thus completely avoiding tax on everything but their home. If enough people were in the same boat, solutions for exempting the home from IHT would doubtless emerge. There used to be an insurance company that effectively let you annuitise the value of your home while continuing to live in it, but that product was withdrawn, I'd guess due to lack of demand given its complexity.

Really all that's needed to solve the "house" problem is the availability of attractive rented accomodation.

But why should DC be forced to start from ground zero every generation?

It is unavoidable that a large number always will. Why should they (for example) be forced to live in worse housing than those who chose better parents, who can out-bid them?

I pay a shit load of tax on my earnings so it's up to me what I do with the bit that I get to take home and as a parent I am all too aware that as I expect ( and hope) that my children will outlive me that I won't be around to care for them so providing some financial care is a good thing.

I have paid a contribution to the running of the country in my income tax so why should my hard earned money be taxed again or taken away from my children? (which would potentially then make them a financial burden on society).

YABU