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?

alpinemeadow
You are right about France, but did you know that their inheritance laws do not allow for spouses to be heirs, only the blood -line children?

If the widow has no children with her deceased DH, then she gets nothing from his estate, it all goes to his nearest blood-line family.

The same in Spain and Greece, and probably other countries.

My friend experienced spanish inheritance laws when her dad died being a resident of France with her DM. The latter was furious she was not allowed to inherit anything from from her DH and my friend had to go to Spain and accept her inheritance as sole legal heir - only child-.

Germany is slightly different in that the surviving spouse does have inheritance rights - if no Will, then 75% for the wife and 25% for the parents and siblings if deceased had no blood-line/adopted DC.

LondonMan - If your only tweak on a 100% inheritance tax was to enable spouses to be provided for and children until they are 18 I think that would be a terrible disadvantage to those who lost their parents during childhood.

It would be rather like how things used to be for children in care (I hope there is slightly better on-going support for those leaving care these days ?) - but anyway, where young people used to be turned out at 16 more of less to fend for themselves.
The on-going support of family throughout our lives is so helpful to most people, and works both ways across the generations I think.

The OP's way of looking at things seems very individualistic, with little sense of family or community I feel.

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.

The person who earned the money and the person who inherits it are two different people, it is consistent with the way taxation works generally for the flow of money to each to be taxed.

Money is taxed when it moves. It doesn't really matter whether it is the person/entity it moves from or to who is legally liable for paying the tax, in reality it is money-in-transfer that is taxed, not the parties at either end of the transaction.

I am a capitalist and my being rich has nothing to do with my still living parents. I don't want to share my money with society and seeing as I will lose most of my own inheritance to taxes, I think that I will have done more than I would choose to. Frankly I think your op is utterly barmy and a wee bit bitter.

It's simple. If you disagree with inheritance bequeath your worldly possessions to the government otherwise butt out of other people's lives

Londonman, refer you to my earlier comment:

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.

"Money is taxed when it moves" I'll have my rebate on my savings and investments now, thanks.

Interesting debate. I agree that while inheritance exists it is a major barrier to social mobility, but I can't see any possible alternative. Communism is a wonderful idea in principle but we've never achieved it in practice (the former USSR was NOT communist) because human nature being what it is, people naturally want to protect what is theirs - which includes doing everything to ensure the wellbeing of their offspring. People will always find a way to get round any system that tries to level the playing ground by removing the principle of inheritance.

I think what would be far more beneficial is higher taxation on significant inheritances. Lots of studies have shown that networking and opportunities provided by money have far more to do with social mobility than educational qualifications, so I'd like to see that extra tax used as a fund to provide those for children from more ordinary and deprived backgrounds.

but if you tax inheritance too much, people will give money when alive.

can you stop or tax people giving money to their family?

I haven't read every page (just the first couple and last couple) so if somebody has said this already...

I can see where you're coming from and think it's easy to be dispassionate when we're talking about cash. But... what about a small family farm? Or a home that has been in the family for generations? or the local butcher "Joe Bloggs and Sons" - Should the son in question not inherit the father's share on his death? Would our towns be better if he had to sell it to tesco to pay inheritance tax? And what about jewellery? wedding rings?

Also, you wouldn't be able to stop wealthy parents from giving their children a massive leg-up in life - they'd just ensure they do it before the cut-off for IH like buying property in the childs name when they hit 18 etc. Rich people with good accountants would be still able to pass on the same they do not, poorer people with a small and very sentimental asset and no accountant would lose out

My dad sent up his business 40 years ago, he is now a very wealthy man, and what else is he to do with his money other than leave it to his loved ones?

Obviously he'll leave a lot to charity - his will already states that 50% of his money will be split equally between four charities - but the rest of it will be for his family.

It's not anyone else's business to be honest.

Being human is an innately unfair condition. We aren't all created equal and there is no way of making us so - we all have difference skills, personalities and levels of intelligence. Trying to create a true meritocracy, even if that is desirable (what about the least able in society - they won't get anything on merit?) is impossible.

You could try and level some of the playing field by getting rid of inheritance but you will de-motivate people from doing better for themselves in the process and nobody benefits from that - it isn't good for the individual, the family or the society/economy as a whole.

I agree that in an ideal world our parents would spend the last of their money on the day they die - they should have fun and enjoy the fruits of their hard work. They would have sold their home, lived it up and have nothing to pass on but that isn't practical is it? Who knows when they are going to die? You have to plan for your future so in reality nobody is going to divest themselves of all their worldly goods and risk living the last years of their life penniless and relying on the charity of their families or on the welfare state. You have to allow people to run their own lives, to do what they think is right for themselves and for their families.

If you don't want to inherit and think it is unfair, give the money you do get to a charity that benefits those that won't be inheriting and could do with a leg up and make a real difference. The alternative would be to let the state have it and that doesn't really benefit anybody at all and does nothing to create the meritocracy, no matter who is in power.

if people are no longer able to leave their property to whom they like, then where is it to go? And who is to decide who benefits from it? this would cause a huge amount of resentment.

the man at the top of our organisation is worth in xs of £150 million and in his 60's. He is already giving parts of his wealth away to his grown up children, prob doing so in a tax efficient way. It is true money goes to money and money makes more money. Income is taxed but wealth is not. He will have fancy accountants and lawyers who know how to beat the system. Life's just not fair?

I don't diasgree with inheritance as a concept, but inheritance tax should bear more of the tax burden than income tax, VAT or council tax.

VAT and council tax are regressive.

Income tax penalises hard work, and is a big part of the poverty trap.

Inheritance tax doesn't really mess up people's incentives, it just takes part of a windfall that the recipient hasn't earned. It was earned by someone, of course.

As it happens, inheritance tax in its current form is regressive in that the middle classes pay it, but the rich by and large do not. They can afford to set up trusts and gimmicks to avoid it. First thing I'd do in power would be to stop all that malarkey. I guess a few big estates would end up getting broken up. Boo f*cking hoo.

Ilovemyself Tue 04-Jun-13 13:31:13
It's simple. If you disagree with inheritance bequeath your worldly possessions to the government otherwise butt out of other people's lives.

Well, you've got to tax something, you know? They don't tax income because they disagree with the concept of income.

Surely it's about finding the fairest way of raising money to pay for all the schools, hospitals, gold-plated civil service pensions etc?

A meritocracy makes for a very uncaring society for vulnerable people perhaps with health/mental health/learning disability problems. I wouldn't hold it up as some sort of gold standard.

the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money to spend.

Only if you do it badly...

Fasterstronger. Just because you have run out of money doesn't mean you need to stop spending. Just ask Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.............

They don't tax income because they disagree with the concept of income.

Actually some do. I think Ed Miliband is one of them. He thinks that a tax cut is equivalent to writing someone a cheque, as opposed to taking less of someone else's money. That means he subscribes to the deeply corrupt philosophy that all money belongs de facto to the state and is for the state to disburse.

Your world sounds a miserable sort of place to live, in my humble opinion. You'll always find some reason to be jealous of those with more, money; garden ornaments;bigger house;taller; more handsome; Would you rather want for us all to dwell at the lowest common denominator? How about we are all given £500,000 by the state as soon as we leave school and then we can have nothing more from anyone? You are free use it loose it or abuse it, just like life. There would still be people moaning that it was "not fair" even if we where all given the same inputs from a "glory pot".
Life's just unfair.. always has been... always will be. There is no utopia those who have tried have ended up as dictatorships or screwed it up in otherways.
Inheritance for the individual is just luck of the draw. Unlucky if your parents spent it all on booze or didn't have it to begin with. Lucky if you are in the top 1% that has millions.

OP you are exactly right there is no coherent argument for the concept of inheritance other than personal greed. Of course practice it is impossible to implement a society free of inheritance.

And yet we have a government that wants to use taxpayer money to pay out inheritances to the 'haves' by 'protecting' assets from being used to fund care homes for those who no longer have any other use for said assets. Who wants a meritocracy.. Feudalism here we come.

Well I hope whoever wants to use 'lifes not fair' as a justification accepts every other intrinsically discriminatory aspect of society without complaint. Removal of benefits from the disabled, sexism... Lifes not fair, so quit moaning.

It's not personal greed - otherwise the older person would spend it all on chocolate and diamonds. It's wanting to do the best for the children. (obviously).