Inheritance tax

[Skepticemea]

Darat, you are on the cusp of saying that all possessions with a financial value would be the governments and only purchased by the private individual, not owned by them. What the hell would the government do with my r2d2 projector?

 

[Darat]

Darat, you are on the cusp of saying that all possessions with a financial value are effectively government loans.

Not really, I'm just being a good capitalist!

 

[Skepticemea]

Not really, I'm just being a good das kapitalist!

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

That could be one way society decides to handle the issue. I can't see why it couldn't be treated as lost property is.

Because after you are dead there is no "you", our language is not very good of addressing this type of situation as the concept of life after death is so deeply embedded in our language and society. To try and express it in terms of contracts, if we take a contract (to keep the discussion simple) to be an agreement between two people, if one of those people no longer exists who is the contract between?

We have well established rules for the disposal of an estate when there are no heirs, which can be pretty much summed up as the government gets the estate.

Think of the advantages if we drop the fiction of a dead person still existing as an entity with wants and preferences.

I'm not sure how the lost property idea would work or what you are suggesting. Lost property still legally belongs to the owner doesn't it?

'You' is whatever we choose to define it as, and if the legal entity of 'you' is afforded some rights after the physical/biological entity 'you' ceases to be then that's not something I philosophically have a problem with.

Why do you believe the government should have the right to the estate of a deceased person?

I'm not really seeing too many advantages over dropping the fiction of a dead person existing as a legal entity. I'm seeing quite a few problems to be honest.

 

[Darat]

I'm not sure how the lost property idea would work or what you are suggesting. Lost property still legally belongs to the owner doesn't it?

'You' is whatever we choose to define it as, and if the legal entity of 'you' is afforded some rights after the physical/biological entity 'you' ceases to be then that's not something I philosophically have a problem with.

Why do you believe the government should have the right to the estate of a deceased person?
I'm not really seeing too many advantages over dropping the fiction of a dead person existing as a legal entity. I'm seeing quite a few problems to be honest.

I don't but that is what happens now with estates that have no heirs so it would seem to be a mechanism that works in line with what society wants.

I do understand that my view is very much in the minority and I don't think it has a cat-in-hell's chance of ever becoming a majority view. But that doesn't mean I won't beat the drum whenever I can to try and get people to face the irrationality of dead people owning stuff!

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I don't but that is what happens now with estates that have no heirs so it would seem to be a mechanism that works in line with what society wants.

I do understand that my view is very much in the minority and I don't think it has a cat-in-hell's chance of ever becoming a majority view. But that doesn't mean I won't beat the drum whenever I can to try and get people to face the irrationality of dead people owning stuff!

But hang on, a dead person would still need to legally own stuff in order for the dead person's stuff to transfer ownership to the government. I don't think your solution is resolving anything.

Is a dead person owning stuff any more irrational than a fictional concept (i.e. a business or even the government) owning stuff?

Not sure why you have a problem with the idea that a legal entity does not have to be alive.

 

[Darat]

But hang on, a dead person would still need to legally own stuff in order for the dead person's stuff to transfer ownership to the government. I don't think your solution is resolving anything.

...snip...

Don't follow that at all. Why?

Is a dead person owning stuff any more irrational than a fictional concept (i.e. a business or even the government) owning stuff?

Not sure why you have a problem with the idea that a legal entity does not have to be alive.

No it's not the same, to again try to keep it simple for our discussion a business only owns stuff under the remit of its owners.

 

[Skepticemea]

I don't but that is what happens now with estates that have no heirs so it would seem to be a mechanism that works in line with what society wants.

I do understand that my view is very much in the minority and I don't think it has a cat-in-hell's chance of ever becoming a majority view. But that doesn't mean I won't beat the drum whenever I can to try and get people to face the irrationality of dead people owning stuff!

I don't think that estates with no heirs passing to the government is what society wants, no one cares. If my mother's possessions passed to the government instead of me when she died I would have been bloody livid! It's not that they were high value, but the photographs of my childhood, her paintings, jewellery that now belongs to my wife, are none of these important?

You might call it sentimentalism. I'd agree.

 

[The Don]

I don't know how much of Darat's position is polemecism but I'll assume none.

I can understand the position that following the death of a person all their possessions become property of the state to dispose of as it sees fit. If there is a couple then items can be placed in common ownership, so that's taken care of and as long as there is some notice then family heirlooms (or items of little monetary value, but great sentimental value such as pictures, medals and so forth) could be gifted ante-mortem.

The bit I have problem with it the provision for dependants. In the unlikely event that both parents die, I can appreciate that they may want to provide assets for the care of their dependants.

Likewise for Mrs Don and I, we don't have children but do have kittehs. Under the terms of our will the Cats Protection League receive £100,000 for the care of Zola and Nino (or their successors) until they can be rehomed (and get to keep the balance). I couldn't bear to think of them being kicked out on the street.

On the other hand anyone can do whatever they want to do with my body. I'd prefer it to be used in some constructive way (transplant, medical research) but I suppose if someone just wants to mutilate it for fun and the government determines that this is fine then so be it.

 

[Skepticemea]

Well personally I'd prefer the state provide my own pyramid laden with traps and curses, along with a few hundred slaves and concubines to ease my journey into the afterlife, but I'll concede I probably wouldn't care. Burial rituals have always been for the bereaved as are heirlooms and estates (where there are surviving family and friends, obv.)

Kind of turns a bit draconian where there are actually dependants (not including the kittehs).

 

[funk de fino]

It is a tax on gifts. It's called the inheritance tax, but that's just the name. What it is is still a tax on gifts.

Total fail.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Don't follow that at all. Why?


No it's not the same, to again try to keep it simple for our discussion a business only owns stuff under the remit of its owners.

Well, the assumption is still that 'a dead person's goods transfer to the government' right? Therefore we still have the concept of a dead person's goods. Otherwise the second you die all your goods enter some Twilight Zone where nobody owns them. How could the government then say 'These goods belong to a deceased person and therefore are rightfully ours'?

Unless conceptually you are arguing that EVERYTHING belongs to HM unless we exert a continuing claim of ownership over them and that sounds a bit iffy to me at a first sniff.

I don't think a business owns stuff under the remit of the owners at all...if the owners die the business continues to own the stuff. I think legally there is quite a distinction between a business's 'stuff' and a business owner's 'stuff'

 

[darling]

Think of the advantages if we drop the fiction of a dead person still existing as an entity with wants and preferences.

I'm not entirely sure that we have that fiction.

"Darat, deceased" is not an entity.
"The Estate of Darat" is an entity.

(And, as a practical matter, if all the potential beneficiaries of "The Estate of Darat" can agree on the estate's division, the wants and preferences of "Darat, deceased" are irrelevant.)

I can understand the position that following the death of a person all their possessions become property of the state to dispose of as it sees fit.

I guess it's an interesting position to take: it would effectively be a 100% taxation rate.
As a practical matter, I'm thinking it would be unworkable.

Total fail.

Meh. I wouln't get too hung up about it.
Inheritance, estate, and gift taxes are inexorably intertwined: they're all just different ways of taxing the same thing.

 

[Beerina]

It is only rational for there to be no inheritance, so I would have thought that a "100% tax" on any remaining assets would be a rational way to deal with the assets left someone dies.

The only person who deserves a rich guy's stuff less than his worthless son is, oh, I don't know...

...ever other damned thieving, greedy person on this god-forsaken planet?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Tax is robbery, enforced by fines and jail sentences.
Taxing dead people is grave robbery.

Anyone who advocates increasing taxes should be tied to a bramble bush in his underwear and be exposed to ridicule and custard.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Just checking to see if you are serious...

 

[Darat]

The only person who deserves a rich guy's stuff less than his worthless son is, oh, I don't know...

...ever other damned thieving, greedy person on this god-forsaken planet?

Well I wasn't thinking it would be limited to rich males and their rich male offspring, I'm quite gender neutral about this.

But as I've said I'm keeping an open mind on this and I would 100% support any dead person who gets in touch after they've died in trying to make sure their wishes were being respected.

 

[darling]

Tax is robbery, enforced by fines and jail sentences.
Taxing dead people is grave robbery.

We put dead people in jail now?

 

[Francesca R]

FTR

The government needs an amount of money. How much it should have and what it should do with it are off-topic debates. For how it should raise it, the relevant yardsticks are things like efficiency (how much it reduces pre-tax output/growth) and "fairness" which usually means progressivity.

Property tax (which is mostly a municipal government tax), wealth tax and inheritance tax are taxes on someone's stock of assets. Income, savings (capital gains) consumption and social insurance taxes are taxes on the positive flow of money someone has a claim on.

There is little ethical difference between these divisions in my view. Some people hate the idea of stock/wealth taxes because of the idea that in a static world, the tax would ultimately gobble it all and impoverish the title holder, whereas by taxing income flows, at least the taxpayer is still getting something left over. But there is no genuine moral distinction between those, and the scenario whereby a wealth/stock tax would drive someone to impoverishment is unrealistic.

Wealth/property/inheritance taxes tend to be progressive, because rich people make up by far most of the tax base (particularly if exemptions apply). They also have the least impact on growth (see OECD 2008, Abstract here). Perversely, many people on the left who describe themselves as progressive, are just as vehemently opposed to these taxes as people on the right who are against large redistribution by the state. That is daft. Progressives should absolutely favour such taxes, as should anyone who wants tax to be efficient (or least inefficient).

Per that OECD study (and most other studies that look at this), other reforms to the tax system should include broadening the base of consumption tax (and increasing the rate in the US), while simplifying income tax (probably not cutting it though, at least not in the US) and cutting corporation tax decisively. Combined in the right way, such a set of reforms can keep the degree of progressivity the same.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Don't follow that at all. Why?

Because otherwise no-one owns it.

Then when someone's Gran dies, anyone can just go annexe their house and appropriate all the belongings therein.

Then someone sets up a company of twirly watchers, just waiting to jump in and take over all their worldly possessions the moment they run out of ATP.

The only alternative to this is to hold the position that the state owns everything and you simply pay rent on it for temporary use while you are alive.

I dont think most people would like to live in such a society.