Capitalism vs Socialism - Your View?

[Steveo2007]

The tax isn't on the person dying, it's on the person getting the money.

 

How can you seriously argue that income tax on earnings from work is fair, but a tax on an income from inheritance is "obscene".

 

You can get

[King Pitcos]

Inheritance tax isn't designed to "punish the rich".

You've obviously not read Kenny's rants about it.

 

The way people in this thread (and in general) talk about increasing inheritance tax, it certainly seems like they're getting off on the idea of punishing the rich, who are all villainised as immoral, lazy, cheating bastards. Which I guess comes back to the moral superiority complex Loki mentioned earlier.

[Steveo2007]

Well, with the money raised by a decent level of inheritance tax -- which I maintain is the least unfair way to raise tax because you aren't taking away anything people have worked for or earned -- you can:

 

a) Avoid the need to cut public spending so much, thus keeping more people in work.

 

On a different argument altogether with this bit, I think the whole cuts in public services things isn't entirely due to just cutting the public deficit but also a way of sugar coating the idea of reducing the size of the state. Cutting the public deficit is a much easier sell than the ideology of small government.

 

 

b) Raise the income tax threshold so that it's more likely people will find themselves better off taking a job rather than staying on benefits

 

or

 

c) Lower/avoid increasing corporation tax so that businesses can be more profitable and afford to take on more staff

 

I think it's quite easy to argue in favour of higher inheritance tax or higher income tax on those who earn more as it's the easy solution and what the hell, they're rich therefore selfish and evil right? Rather than thinking of raising taxes, the Government should be looking for ways of fixing what's broken with the current tax system which allows people to avoid paying taxes in this country and it being somehow legal.

 

 

What, like heirs to estates?

 

 

No, I'm thinking more along the lines of third generations who've leeched off the state. Regardless of how you try and swing it, a wealthy child living off mummy and daddy's money is a better asset to society as they're not living off the state, so resources can ultimately be pumped into the areas that need it most. When people are well enough off that they don't need the state then the state should withdraw support altogether, like with child benefit for instance. Making that means tested would save millions in itself.

[Loki]

With inheritance tax I'm not talking about the people who cheat the system. I'm talking about people being given a grossly unfair head-start in life purely because of who their parents happen to be. If parents want to lavish money on their kids while they're alive then that's their choice. Leaving them vast quantities of unearned cash and/or property is absolutely contrary to the idea that we're a nation that promotes opportunity and self-improvement and all that jazz. It's promoting an aristocracy by another name.

 

So, you're against accumulating vast wealth through a system of inheritance and gifts? I look forward to the Catholic Church announcing both selling off all its many accumulated assets and redistributing to the poor, and its refusal of all new income through money left to it in people's wills.

 

Obviously, you're talking bollocks as per usual. Aristocracy is a system of rule by unelected prominent citizens; the Catholic Church and the Vatican is an aristocracy, for example. You're confusing that with social stratification through inherited wealth.

 

I think that those arguing in this thread against inheritance are barking up the wrong tree. If there is an inequality, then it's in the relative pay scales between different jobs and seniorities in society. Once a person has earned their wage, and paid income tax on it, what they do with it when they die is their business. Plenty of people use their estates to fund charities, provide housing for their less well off relatives, help in the upbringing of their granchildren, help friends out of long-term financial difficulties... it's a lot more complicated than the picture you draw.

 

Personally, I'm working my arse off to get rich, and if I ever manage to accumulate enough money to have some left over when I die, I don't see why it should go towards paying for some dole-scrounger's Sky subscription.

[Yoghurt]

With inheritance tax I'm not talking about the people who cheat the system. I'm talking about people being given a grossly unfair head-start in life purely because of who their parents happen to be. If parents want to lavish money on their kids while they're alive then that's their choice. Leaving them vast quantities of unearned cash and/or property is absolutely contrary to the idea that we're a nation that promotes opportunity and self-improvement and all that jazz. It's promoting an aristocracy by another name.

 

So, you're against accumulating vast wealth through a system of inheritance and gifts? I look forward to the Catholic Church announcing both selling off all its many accumulated assets and redistributing to the poor, and its refusal of all new income through money left to it in people's wills.

 

Obviously, you're talking bollocks as per usual. Aristocracy is a system of rule by unelected prominent citizens; the Catholic Church and the Vatican is an aristocracy, for example. You're confusing that with social stratification through inherited wealth.

 

I think that those arguing in this thread against inheritance are barking up the wrong tree. If there is an inequality, then it's in the relative pay scales between different jobs and seniorities in society. Once a person has earned their wage, and paid income tax on it, what they do with it when they die is their business. Plenty of people use their estates to fund charities, provide housing for their less well off relatives, help in the upbringing of their granchildren, help friends out of long-term financial difficulties... it's a lot more complicated than the picture you draw.

 

Personally, I'm working my arse off to get rich, and if I ever manage to accumulate enough money to have some left over when I die, I don't see why it should go towards paying for some dole-scrounger's Sky subscription.

 

Hey, they work hard coming up with excuses and fake disabilities. Those Sky subscriptions aren't cheap, they have too neglect their children too be able to afford it, and their ciggies and special brew.

[jimufctna24]

I dont think you can win either way with inheitance tax, on one hand of course people should be able to leave there money where they please when they pass on, the only downside is if they leave it to there kids it does give there kids a unfair advantage in life over less privaldges kids and I personally have a hard time saying "tough shit", as its already been pointed out though some do leave to charities and other good causes and that adds a new dimension on the argument

[David]

Hey, they work hard coming up with excuses and fake disabilities. Those Sky subscriptions aren't cheap, they have too to neglect their children too to be able to afford it, and their ciggies and special brew.

That statement confirms that you're nothing but a tit.

 

I'd also suggest that you may want to focus on your own shortcomings before making ridiculous sweeping statements.

[Yoghurt]

My 2's have been corrected. Socialism it is.

[WildSybianRider]

"Obviously, you're talking bollocks as per usual. Aristocracy is a system of rule by unelected prominent citizens; the Catholic Church and the Vatican is an aristocracy, for example. You're confusing that with social stratification through inherited wealth."

 

 

Do you want me to recommend a good comprehension course?? I mean, aside from the ever-hilarious Kenny the Catholic angle, do you not understand what is being said? He is saying that your "social stratification" is a de facto aristocracy; the cycle he describes perpetuates "a system of rule by unelected prominent citizens". That is not - and it would be stupid to think that it is - limited to governance. You appear far more confused than him.

[JNLister]

Just to check the arguments here, if I've got a bunch of money, say half a million:

 

If I use it to start a business and have to pay corporation tax on the profits, that's OK

 

If I use it to hire a cleaner on minimum wage and they still have to pay income tax, that's OK.

 

If I buy a house and have to pay council tax, that's OK.

 

If I buy a car and have to pay VAT, that's OK.

 

If I invest it and have to pay a tax on any interest or profits, that's OK.

 

If I leave it to someone in a will and they have to pay inheritance tax on it, that's not OK.

[Fog Dude]

Obviously, you're talking bollocks as per usual. Aristocracy is a system of rule by unelected prominent citizens; the Catholic Church and the Vatican is an aristocracy, for example. You're confusing that with social stratification through inherited wealth.

And you're not the first in this discussion to confuse an aristocracy with an oligarchy. An aristocracy is unelected, but it means rule by the best in the interests of all. A self-serving barely accountable

[Loki]

Obviously, you're talking bollocks as per usual. Aristocracy is a system of rule by unelected prominent citizens; the Catholic Church and the Vatican is an aristocracy, for example. You're confusing that with social stratification through inherited wealth.

And you're not the first in this discussion to confuse an aristocracy with an oligarchy. An aristocracy is unelected, but it means rule by the best in the interests of all. A self-serving barely accountable

[Fog Dude]

Are you correcting me or Kenny? Because I think that's what I said! Wiki defines aristocracy as "a form of government in which a few of the most prominent citizens rule". Oligarchy being a better definition of what he was trying to say.

Kenny is hamstrung by his Catholicism, and you rightly called him out on that again, but it looked like you were both misrepresenting what an aristocracy is meant to be. There seem to be lots of overlapping words for what we're getting at though: plutarchy, oligarchy, kleptocracy...

 

Ooh er, I don't speak Greek so perhaps I shouldn't have opened that can of worms.

[Loki]

Just to check the arguments here, if I've got a bunch of money, say half a million:

 

If I use it to start a business and have to pay corporation tax on the profits, that's OK

 

If I use it to hire a cleaner on minimum wage and they still have to pay income tax, that's OK.

 

If I buy a house and have to pay council tax, that's OK.

 

If I buy a car and have to pay VAT, that's OK.

 

If I invest it and have to pay a tax on any interest or profits, that's OK.

 

If I leave it to someone in a will and they have to pay inheritance tax on it, that's not OK.

 

Yes, because each of those other than the last one is a transaction from which you are benefitting in some sort of service/product, whereas leaving money to your children doesn't generate anything for you.

 

Bear in mind, if you give the money as a gift and 7 years then passes before your death, you don't have to pay tax on that money. That means the penalty, in some respects, is for hanging onto the money until you drop dead. That opens the door, sadly, to elderly people being persuaded to part with their wonga whilst they might still need it by over-anxious relatives. It's very sad how complicated wills and the distribution of assets can get, with families feuding for years over small sums and over small personal items. As I said before, sometimes people get booted out of the family house so that the tax can be paid to the government, meaning that they end up much worse off than before.

 

I should declare at this point that my wife works in wills and estate management, hence my interest.

 

EDIT: and I'm not advocating NO inheritance tax, I should point out, just pointing out the other side of the argument.

[David]

"Obviously, you're talking bollocks as per usual. Aristocracy is a system of rule by unelected prominent citizens; the Catholic Church and the Vatican is an aristocracy, for example. You're confusing that with social stratification through inherited wealth."

 

Do you want me to recommend a good comprehension course?? I mean, aside from the ever-hilarious Kenny the Catholic angle, do you not understand what is being said? He is saying that your "social stratification" is a de facto aristocracy; the cycle he describes perpetuates "a system of rule by unelected prominent citizens". That is not - and it would be stupid to think that it is - limited to governance. You appear far more confused than him.