[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Home]

RE: political philosophy - inheritance tax

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


It seems to me that inheritance is not as beneficial as many would make out.
I have known many families (my own included) who have fallen out over
contested wills and apparently unfair distribution of an estate. There are
also many strained relationships where a wealthy person keeps a relative
under control by the promise of a future bequest. Like lottery winners, the
recipients of large sums of money may find the experience distressing, as
they become the target for angry relatives, or begging letters from friends
and neighbours. However some inheritors lives are greatly improved by their
benefactor - I shall always be grateful to my aunt who left me enough money
to buy a small car when I was hard up.

On the whole I like the idea of all of a deceased persons estate going to
help the good of the community. The dead person doesn't suffer, and if their
family know this will happen in advance, then they can plan and prepare for
it, as people do now to avoid inheritance tax. It would also help to lessen
some of the toxicity around family relationships - people who come to treat
their elderly relatives money as their own, and begrudge them some please in
old age as it means their inheritance will be reduced.

Such a law would level the playing field and encourage every person to make
their own life in their own way and would break up some of the powerful
interest groups that are built on dynasties. It may also have an interesting
effect on businesses - if you build up a business, but cannot leave it to
your child, then maybe we would get more co-operative companies owned by
their employees.

The key question though is who does the wealth belong to? The opposing
argument would be that I should be able to do with my wealth whatever I
want, but then do we all agree that property rights are so simple? Property
is usually considered as being "owned", but perhaps this is just a cultural
trait. There are also communities where private property does not exist, at
best one is given stewardship of property. If this second view prevails,
then indeed a 100% inheritance tax makes sense.

Bernie Doeser
Sandiway, Cheshire, UK.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com
[mailto:owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com]On Behalf Of Alice Evans
Sent: 08 September 2005 08:08
To: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Subject: political philosophy - inheritance tax

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
BUPS-DIS@bups.org


** For Your Eyes Only **

Good Morning/ Afternoon/ Evening (delete as appropriate),

just wondering what the group thought of inheritance tax?

it largely exists to lessen accidental income, to create a more equal
society by diminishing the influence of one's socio-economic background

it helps society by yielding large revenues of income at no cost to the
individual earner (he's dead thus has no interests)
(it could be said that the tax upsets the  bearer whilst alive, as they
worry about their children's future)

 it isnt a major deterrent to industry, far less so than income tax anyway
(arguably ppl earn money to fulfil their interests,
they have an interest in the happiness of their children/ spouses,
ppl feel they can fulfil such interests of others by ensuring their fiscal
security after their own death
and so u are removing an incentive to work
but i see this as a minor disincentive...

evidently ppl tend to focus on short-term goals and achievements, hence why
most of us dont really do the whole save the planet thing/ fair trade, it
just doesnt appeal right now - its a bit of a struggle to put the long term
interests of others or indeed ourselves before immediate gratfication (hence
the prevalence of smoking), analagously, vegetarianism (in my view) doesnt
appeal to the masses cos it doesnt appear to be in our immediate
interests...

so, future worries have a limiting effect so income tax wont upset industry

(ok yes im being purposefully vague and somewhat lazy in argument but im
hoping this will set the vultures off and provoke discussion)

in practical terms we could tax adult children more heavily etc, if they've
moved out from the nest etc

but my basic argument is thus,

equality is important
we want to achieve equality of access to opportunity
to do so we must limit the influence that factors beyond the individual's
control can play in determining their future
inheritance tax is a good way to do so

so 100% tax then...........?

ok, that's my lot, start dissecting and trashing....

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list
at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm




Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm