I don't get the Lib Dems

[Zulu Elephant]

From the definitions offered here. Im not sure how inheritence tax can be considered a wealth tax - its so different, both practically and morally different

[Dauphin]

Inheritance tax should be treated in the same manner as gift taxes, the fact that you are dead when you give the gift shouldn't enter into it.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Dauphin


Council tax is an interesting one. With council tax the concept of the wealth tax for its own sake is often lost. Its often not based on the ability to pay, which is an ideological basis for wealth taxes.

Outside municipal taxes, one difficult case for wealth taxes has always been farms. They often are "worth" millions but the farmer has no ability to pay a large tax bill. This often remains true when an offspring inherits the farm.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Inheritance tax should be treated in the same manner as gift taxes, the fact that you are dead when you give the gift shouldn't enter into it.

Canada does not tax gifts IIRC. No deduction for the donor and no income inclusion for the donee.

Thats part of the reason I don't see the logic of an inheritence tax-- If I can give something to my son tax free now, why should my death triggering that gift change the situation?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
From the definitions offered here. Im not sure how inheritence tax can be considered a wealth tax - its so different, both practically and morally different

I always thought of an inheritence tax as a form of or a subset of the possible range of wealth taxes. In eitehr case the practical calculation is a % of "wealth"

As for morality . . . If you accept that I own something, part of the parcel of rights of ownership is the ability to give that something to someone else. I don't see what is so moral about stripping a person of that ownership right since they happen to be dead

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
From the definitions offered here. Im not sure how inheritence tax can be considered a wealth tax - its so different, both practically and morally different

I always thought of an inheritence tax as a form of or a subset of the possible range of wealth taxes. In eitehr case the practical calculation is a % of "wealth"

As for morality . . . If you accept that I own something, part of the parcel of rights of ownership is the ability to give that something to someone else. I don't see what is so moral about stripping a person of that ownership right since they happen to be dead

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Flubber



Canada does not tax gifts IIRC. No deduction for the donor and no income inclusion for the donee.

Thats part of the reason I don't see the logic of an inheritence tax-- If I can give something to my son tax free now, why should my death triggering that gift change the situation?

Same here, and that's my thought aswell. Well, that is to say there is no tax on gifts as long as you don't peg it for seven years. Which seems silly really.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Silly in that it would make inheritance tax even more pointless if that stipulation wasn't there?

[Zulu Elephant]

To play devil's advocate...In a meritocracy, why shouldn't we have a 100% inheritance tax (without getting into the whole thing about passing on small family owned businesses)

[Sandman]

Inheritance tax is an income tax, plain and simple.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
To play devil's advocate...In a meritocracy, why shouldn't we have a 100% inheritance tax (without getting into the whole thing about passing on small family owned businesses)

For starters, you'd have to tax all gifts at 100% as well (including paying for kids education, grandparents healthcare, family holidays, birthday and Christmas presents etc) Just not gonna work.

[Zulu Elephant]

But why, in a meritocracy - where the amount of money you have is meant to be determined by the set of skills you have, should people recieve large sums of money thanks to the wealth of their family

[Flubber]

There's actually a practical reporting problem as well. If I have a million dollars worth of cut gems in a safe deposit box that I pass on to my son, how exactly are you going to enforce things?

Plus put on your 100% wealth tax and then watch as capital flees your country or alternately, ownership of most things becomes corporate with a sheaf of thick agreements that would make your head spin. I'm not even in this area of law and I could create a series of corporations and trusts with interrelated leasing and usage agreements that it would take teams of government regulators to unravel while the GRANDCHILDREN continued to enjoy the benefits of the wealth.

Heck a simple solution is debt. Own a 10 million house . . . mortgage it to the hilt and invest the rest outside the country with the big wealth tax-- or even fritter it away

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
But why, in a meritocracy - where the amount of money you have is meant to be determined by the set of skills you have, should people recieve large sums of money thanks to the wealth of their family

In a pure meritocracy, they wouldn't. But then again perhaps the drug addled criminal would be denied basic health care in such a system



But how many parents do you know that care about "merit" when they care for their children? I want my son to go to a good university and will pay for him to do so if thats his wish. Do I care that another better student may not get to that school?? In the abstract yes but in reality hell no!! I want what's best for my son and most of the work I do is mainly so I can provide for him. I WANT my son to benefit from my labours and thats why I work. If I provide well, my son will probably have advantages compared to some ( and disadvanatges compared to some others) but thats not what concerns me . . . making the best life I can for my son is.


I don't want to live in a pure meritocracy if it means my son's well being is totally divorced from my efforts

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Dauphin
41%. But then the average sod is paying 33%. Its just gloss the fact that income tax' is stated as only 22%

Don't forget that most of the wealth of the upper class comes from inheritance, corporate dividends, and capital gains...so with the Republicans' successful attacks on the "death tax," on "double taxation" and on capital gains, the Americans with the highest incomes pay less tax on their income than middle-class wage earners.