Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

orgaelin · Aug 22, 2004, 03:20 pm

I know there's 'nothing more certain than death and taxes', but taxes on death?

I know not many of us here are in the UK, but most of you should be glad about that. There's a horrible tax here called inheritance tax, from which the government makes a hell of a lot of money, and is now trying to change it to make MORE money!

Basically, if your estate is worth 263K or more when you die, you pay 30% of it to the government - that is the same government that has been taking taxes off you your whole life already, and now they want more when you die.

If it's worth > 280K you pay 40%, and on more than 300K you pay 50% tax!

That means that when my dad dies, having spent his entire life working his ass off at least 10 hours a day, often more, they will take half, HALF, of everything he has ever worked for. In fact, because he was in the higher tax bracket, they already taxed him at 40%, plus 10% national insurance... so they take half his money his whole life, and then take half of what's left over when he dies too!

Now my question: does anyone support this? To me it feels just plain wrong. Sick even.

The Dunedan · Aug 22, 2004, 05:07 pm

Yup, we've got 'em in the uSA as well. They're your typical, basic Statist "Punish the successful" trick. Even more heinous, it punishes the children of successful people for having the temerity to be born to successful parents! All involuntary taxation is theft, but this is the most blatantly immoral example of such a thing I can think of.

orgaelin · Aug 22, 2004, 05:59 pm

I agree. On some points any way!

Obviously we need *some* taxation, and I fully believe in using the rich to help the poor. But let's do it when they're alive instead of robbing their graves, eh?!

Lava · Aug 22, 2004, 10:31 pm

Does seem particularly mean to rob upto 50% of what someone spent their entire life working for to give to their children. Specially after theyve already been one of the bigger contributors to government finances.

Lava

castille · Aug 23, 2004, 05:06 am

What? You Americans get it soft. In Australia, when you earn over 50K, the government takes 48% tax away.

So for every dollar you earn over 50K, you lose almost half of it.

I don't mind taxes, its that the government has no business sense and blows money away on stupid things (ie. politician spends 5 nights in hotel room, $5000 taxpayers money gone).

However this issue isn't a concern to most young people, since they don't work or earn enough to pay taxes anyway. But once they reach a certain age...

Samildanach · Aug 23, 2004, 06:31 am

I don't know about the issue really I have been thinking about it a bit since my gf brought it up with me the other night, she was outraged at the thought of it, so I naturally played devils advocate and here are the arguments I came up with for it.

1) If you tax a person who is very rich in this way then it effectively can stop dynasties developing which can eventually hold a great deal of sway over government.
2) What is wrong with taxing a dead person? The only real problem is for the children of the dead person who don't want to have to work because they basically want to sit around and be lazy. So I don't see the dead protesting, I just see greedy children.

IMO I think that all assets once a married couple dies should be returned to the govt. This would encourage people to be more generous and distribute wealth a lot more during their twilight years rather than hoard it away, this would mean that the main assets would be held by people who are middle aged.....coincidently the age I am now

Quote Orgaelin
Obviously we need *some* taxation, and I fully believe in using the rich to help the poor. But let's do it when they're alive instead of robbing their graves, eh?!

Hell I'd rather be taxed when dead to be honest. At least that way I won't know about it.

orgaelin · Aug 23, 2004, 08:04 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Samildanach,
so I naturally played devils advocate

I never understood why people "naturally" play that role!

Quote:

1) If you tax a person who is very rich in this way then it effectively can stop dynasties developing which can eventually hold a great deal of sway over government.

I can see your point, but the kind of money we are talking about isn't nearly enough to fund dynasties. I mean, the taxt is 50% on just 300 thousand!

Here's the worst thing: what about the Queen (I'm English in case you didn't realise)? Is she going to give 50% of her EMPIRE back to the government?

No. Why not? Because she's a wrinkly hag too stubborn to shuffle off the ancient throne that no longer stands for leadership-through-service.

Sorry. I'm calm now.

Quote:

2) What is wrong with taxing a dead person? The only real problem is for the children of the dead person who don't want to have to work because they basically want to sit around and be lazy. So I don't see the dead protesting, I just see greedy children.

Actually the living protest too. When you have amassed material wealth you eventually come to realise it's a waste of time. What good is to you when you're going to die and leave it all behind? But then the saving grace: if you have children, you can pass it on. You no longer feel you have amassed a load of worthless crap because you can give it to your loved ones.

Only you can't. The government has to take it's cut first. Then your kids can have the scraps.

I don't know about you, but I would feel sore if I knew that was going to happen with my money.

Quote:

IMO I think that all assets once a married couple dies should be returned to the govt. This would encourage people to be more generous and distribute wealth a lot more during their twilight years rather than hoard it away,

I agree that hoarding wealth is wrong. I also agree my father should give now rather than when he dies. But of course, I'm a little biased in that! Anywho, for now the money is better off in his hands - he can turn money into more money, I just turn it into smoke!

Quote:

this would mean that the main assets would be held by people who are middle aged.....coincidently the age I am now

We're a biassed lot aren't we?!

Quote:

Hell I'd rather be taxed when dead to be honest. At least that way I won't know about it.

Ah but you will! You're not dead till you're dead. Fact: I brought my children into the world knowing full well that some day I was going to die and leave them on their own. That's gonna be hard for them to come to terms with. I know it's not much comfort, but at least a large sum of money is going to fund them to distract their minds from their loss.

What good does it do for the government?!

I could agree this: that 50% of my estate went to charity. A charity of my choosing too. That would be fine, completely. At least then we would know it isn't being spent on giant antique mahogony desks for the polititians to view their reflections in while they pluck their nose hairs.

That would be morally sound for everyone, but taking money from the dead is not.

Gorgo · Aug 23, 2004, 08:06 am

Why not put something back?

http://www.responsiblewealth.org/pre...tAlone_pr.html

5010 · Aug 23, 2004, 03:45 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Samildanach,

IMO I think that all assets once a married couple dies should be returned to the govt.

I don't understand what you mean by "returned to the government". Are you talking about people who became wealthy from government welfare or something?

Lava · Aug 24, 2004, 05:43 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Gorgo,
Why not put something back?

What makes you think we dont?

Regards, Lava

Gorgo · Aug 24, 2004, 05:59 am

Then we are in agreement.

Aug 22, 2004, 03:20 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
orgaelin Igneous Magma Location: Midlands UK Posts: 712	I know there's 'nothing more certain than death and taxes', but taxes on death? I know not many of us here are in the UK, but most of you should be glad about that. There's a horrible tax here called inheritance tax, from which the government makes a hell of a lot of money, and is now trying to change it to make MORE money! Basically, if your estate is worth 263K or more when you die, you pay 30% of it to the government - that is the same government that has been taking taxes off you your whole life already, and now they want more when you die. If it's worth > 280K you pay 40%, and on more than 300K you pay 50% tax! That means that when my dad dies, having spent his entire life working his ass off at least 10 hours a day, often more, they will take half, HALF, of everything he has ever worked for. In fact, because he was in the higher tax bracket, they already taxed him at 40%, plus 10% national insurance... so they take half his money his whole life, and then take half of what's left over when he dies too! Now my question: does anyone support this? To me it feels just plain wrong. Sick even. "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

Aug 22, 2004, 05:59 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
orgaelin Igneous Magma Location: Midlands UK Posts: 712	I agree. On some points any way! Obviously we need some taxation, and I fully believe in using the rich to help the poor. But let's do it when they're alive instead of robbing their graves, eh?! "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

Aug 23, 2004, 05:06 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	What? You Americans get it soft. In Australia, when you earn over 50K, the government takes 48% tax away. So for every dollar you earn over 50K, you lose almost half of it. I don't mind taxes, its that the government has no business sense and blows money away on stupid things (ie. politician spends 5 nights in hotel room, $5000 taxpayers money gone). However this issue isn't a concern to most young people, since they don't work or earn enough to pay taxes anyway. But once they reach a certain age... Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Aug 23, 2004, 06:31 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
Samildanach Pragmatist Location: UK London Posts: 1,979	I don't know about the issue really I have been thinking about it a bit since my gf brought it up with me the other night, she was outraged at the thought of it, so I naturally played devils advocate and here are the arguments I came up with for it. 1) If you tax a person who is very rich in this way then it effectively can stop dynasties developing which can eventually hold a great deal of sway over government. 2) What is wrong with taxing a dead person? The only real problem is for the children of the dead person who don't want to have to work because they basically want to sit around and be lazy. So I don't see the dead protesting, I just see greedy children. IMO I think that all assets once a married couple dies should be returned to the govt. This would encourage people to be more generous and distribute wealth a lot more during their twilight years rather than hoard it away, this would mean that the main assets would be held by people who are middle aged.....coincidently the age I am now Quote Orgaelin Obviously we need some taxation, and I fully believe in using the rich to help the poor. But let's do it when they're alive instead of robbing their graves, eh?! Hell I'd rather be taxed when dead to be honest. At least that way I won't know about it. I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs and insanity for everyone, but its always worked for me. Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." (Ernest Hemingway)

Aug 22, 2004, 05:07 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
The Dunedan Hot Lava Posts: 925	Yup, we've got 'em in the uSA as well. They're your typical, basic Statist "Punish the successful" trick. Even more heinous, it punishes the children of successful people for having the temerity to be born to successful parents! All involuntary taxation is theft, but this is the most blatantly immoral example of such a thing I can think of.

Aug 22, 2004, 10:31 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Lava Igneous Magma Posts: 716	Does seem particularly mean to rob upto 50% of what someone spent their entire life working for to give to their children. Specially after theyve already been one of the bigger contributors to government finances. Lava

Aug 23, 2004, 08:06 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	Why not put something back? http://www.responsiblewealth.org/pre...tAlone_pr.html

Aug 24, 2004, 05:59 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	Then we are in agreement.