[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Home]
Re: Alice's inheritnace tax proposals (a problem)
To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Initially, this (truly nasty) example seems to be conclusive: let the poor
chap keep his dad's money. However, on closer inspection we see that it
just emotional not rational anti-tax evidence. Yes, it is a bad thing that
the chap lost his parents, and yes he could do with the money to sort the
situation out. But, surely it is not just the rich who get skin cancer. We
can concieve of a situation where the same tragedy happens, minus the
wealth - what happens here?
The point of inheritence tax is redistribution, so yes, your flatmate would
lose a proportion of his inheritence (or if i get my way, probably all of
it). But then he would be supported by a wealthy state, and so would the
poorer people in the same situation.
As a slight aside: inheritence tax is usually a left/right wing political
issue. Tories don't like it, lefties do. But Tories also like personal
responsibility.
Inheritence tax seems to bolster the idea of personal responsibility. If we
stop major benefit from inheritence, then wealth is tied to each persons
efforts and perhaps their luck.
SO: inheritence tax has two benefits - a potentially caring state, and the
bolstering of personal responsibility. The only thing that we lose is an
element of unfairness.
On Sep 9 2005, andrew stephenson wrote:
Hi Alice,
i have a sadly harrowing empirical observation that seems to
problematize any abstract arguements for a simple inheritance tax. My
housemate is only 19. he recently lost his father to skin cancer, having
lost his mother ten years ago to the same disease. he has a younger
sister who is 17, and a younger brother who is 12. His father was a
well-off man, being a judge and because my friend is technically an
idependant adult, but also the gaurdian of his younger siblings, the
whole iheritance is subject to the highest inheritance tax. I propose
(admittedly, not very objectively) that this is a travesty which arises
because such a tax seems too indiscriminate. I am not arguing with your
main points, only pointing out that, whether or not inheritance tax is
increased, it needs some futher regulation. My point also higlights a
small but important problem with the seemingly essential abstract nature
of political philosophies. Are there always cases that can only be dealt
with in a justified way by applied politics, not by philosophy? What do
you think?
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear
PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm