IHT- a counter to the right

["Alice Evans" <apyyae@nottingham.ac.uk>]

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


** For Your Eyes Only **

ok, im taking time out of my study of ethics to raise some responses to previous arguments,


Harish,

(hello! it's been a while... how goes it, had quite forgotten u were so right-wing, good luck with that...)

1. you argue that ppl will save less if IHT is increased but i disagree. we never know when we're gonna keel over, so we dont continuously splurge our savings, never knowing when we might need them. secondly, most ppl's capital is tied up in their house and so is thus not splurgeable, IHT has limited effect on saving if the house was already bought anyway ... so ur argument collapses.

2. as for this tax on love business, please abandon the debator rhetoric pronto...(!) 
u wholeheartedly fail to confront the issue of creating social equality, considering this one a main feature of my argument u might at least raise the issue. yes, i appreciate ur points, and yes, i dont want to burn family ties and natural caring emotions, but in a cost-benefit analysis ur points simply dont outweigh the more important issue. 

to expand, in my view, rights exist as rights-claims, which must be weighed up.  Conferring rights on the basis of interests does not mean that only the right-holder's interests are relevant to the question of whether something should be recognised as a right . One must also consider the interests of those affected. It is commonly accepted that both potential persons and actual persons possess rights, but when the health of the actual person is at stake, her right overrides that of the foetus. Ann Thomson argues that the mother's rights only have priority if the child cannot be safely removed. So, clearly we can distinguish between need and needless killing of the fetus, hence why infanticide is a crime . My right of free expression should only be curtailed on the harm principle, rather than due to causing offence. Another example is that a person's interest in continued survival generally entails a correlative right to freedom from non-interference but if they are threatening the existence of another then we grant the other the overriding right to self-defence.

so, while i recognise the strength of ur arguments harish, i think that attempting to ensure equal access to opportunity is more important.

i suppose the onus is now on u to show me why creating social equality is not so important.......? (or rather than IHT is not the best means of doing so)

Rab,

apologies if i have misunderstood but are u now championing inherited wealth?!? what the devil...? i am somewhat bemused... (to put it mildly). 

so if the rich dont stay rich and if any random child born into that family doesnt reap the rewards for which he holds no desert over at all (pot luck, rather than making any effort to at all), then society is doomed to failure........? eek (to put it very mildly). 

so if rich families dont exist then the pot-luck-rich-kid cant buy an art gallery..? boohoo? err. and by the way, as for, ur claim that "we have often looked to families with huge personal wealth. More than can be accumulated in one lifetime", actually ppl can earn big sums in a lifetime (in the present climate) eg. branson. so yes, we can make money, and no we dont need to give spoilt brats (who've accumulated wealth by being the fortunate parasites of their forefathers) the freedom to spend as they so chose. 

as for ur reference to political parties (that we need Inherited wealth so that the rich kids can fund them) well, quite frankly im outraged. so ur arguing that its good that some rich kid can fund a political party? err.. hello? what happened to democratic principles? that money shouldnt buy (too much) power? 

oh my goodness

im just going to repeat that, 

so one more time,

oh my goodness

ok, so ur probably all going to criticise my rant and say that my arguments and logic is crap, id be delighted if you do so, id hate to live in ignorance, i sincerely delight upon education so just show me the path to goodness....

Alice




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