Inheritance Tax

[IdleRich]

"Here's a link to an article on the mechanics behind the repeal of a similar tax in the US: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n11/runc01_.html"

Thanks, interesting stuff.

"LOL [but you meant increases people's incentive to die, no?]"

No, Slothrop had it the right way round.

One thing that I don't get. People keep talking about "double-taxation" but as Vimothy points out, the main (potential) cause of people rising above the threshold to pay the tax is the increasing value of their houses, an increase that hasn't in fact been taxed, so why is it double-taxation?

 

[nomadologist]

All you have to do in the U.S. to bypass the inheritance tax is to make sure non of your assets are liquid--buy a piece of property in your aunt or uncle's name and have them "sell" it to you for a nominal amount of money. Then you liquidate.

Or put that shit in a Roth IRA or living trust.

 

[Mr. Tea]

People keep talking about "double-taxation" but as Vimothy points out, the main (potential) cause of people rising above the threshold to pay the tax is the increasing value of their houses, an increase that hasn't in fact been taxed...

...or, in any meaningful sense, earned in the first place.

 

[noel emits]

It seems fair to make allowances for the value of a first home, not so much where multiple property ownership is concerned.

 

[IdleRich]

"It seems fair to make allowances for the value of a first home, not so much where multiple property ownership is concerned."

In terms of inheritance tax? Why?

 

[noel emits]

In terms of inheritance tax? Why?

Which bit?

The Gov's stated reason for increasing the threshold seems fair enough on the face of it - not to penalise people and cause them to lose their family homes just because the property value has risen so much.

In the case of multiple property ownership I suppose that's a more political point but I don't think it should be encouraged simply because i believe a house should be somewhere to live and not something to make a profit on. If you own more property than you and your family need to live in then you are exploiting others as that property could be directly used by someone else,

 

[Mr. Tea]

Would it not be possible for people who can't afford to pay the tax without selling the house to take out a sort of mortgage on it, in order to retain the house and pay off the tax over a period of years? Then again, I can see a lot of people simply considering such a strategy to be more trouble (and cost) than it's worth.

 

[IdleRich]

"The Gov's stated reason for increasing the threshold seems fair enough on the face of it - not to penalise people and cause them to lose their family homes just because the property value has risen so much."

Well, yes I see what you mean, but being punished for their house having risen so much will be ameliorated slightly by receiving the money (minus tax) from the sale of their very valuable houses.
Also, I wonder how many people are indeed forced to sell their houses due to inheritance tax. We keep hearing this figure of 6 (or sometimes) 5 percent of estates being affected by the tax but surely (as they are of course the wealthiest people) a lot of those estates are likely to include money as well. What I'm saying is that I would imagine that the richest five percent of people are going to leave an amount of money to their children that is going to be sufficient to pay for the tax on the house?
We keep hearing about all these poor people being forced to sell their inherited houses but I can't believe it happens as often as all that. Are there any figures relating to this?

 

[noel emits]

Not sure on figures but I can easily see how it's a situation that could arise quite frequently. So many perfectly ordinary houses will have risen in value to over the previous threshold even in just the last ten years.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Originally Posted by Slothrop:

Vim would tell us that increasing inheritance tax decreases people's incentive to die. ​

Originally Posted by Hundredmillionlifetimes:

LOL [but you meant increases people's incentive to die, no?]​

Originally Posted by Idlerich:

No, Slothrop had it the right way round.​

So you're now arguing, in your Blairite idlereason, that Vim is in favour of increases in inheritance taxes. Hilarious ... Only at Dissensus!


Originally Posted by Vimothy:

No - inheritance tax surely de-incentivises death

[EDIT - I mean yes, obviously...]​

By it being no, obviously, you mean yes obviously? Or by it being obviously yes you mean no, obviously? Are you Idlerich's identical twin, by any chance, obviously?

[beyond the hyper-roffle]

"The dead know only one thing: it is better to be alive." Obviously ...

 

[Slothrop]

So you're now arguing, in your Blairite idlereason, that Vim is in favour of increases in inheritance taxes.

Or alternatively that he wants people to get off their lazy arses and die.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Originally Posted by Slothrop:

Vim would tell us that increasing inheritance tax decreases people's incentive to die. ​

Originally Posted by Hundredmillionlifetimes:

LOL [but you meant increases people's incentive to die, no?]​

Originally Posted by Idlerich:

No, Slothrop had it the right way round.​

So you're now arguing, in your Blairite idlereason, that Vim is in favour of increases in inheritance taxes. Hilarious ... Only at Dissensus!


Originally Posted by Vimothy:

No - inheritance tax surely de-incentivises death

[EDIT - I mean yes, obviously...]​

By it being no, obviously, you mean yes obviously? Or by it being obviously yes you mean no, obviously? Are you Idlerich's identical twin, by any chance, obviously?

[beyond the hyper-roffle]

"The dead know only one thing: it is better to be alive." Obviously ...

Look, it's not exactly difficult: Vimothy's position as a libertarian/anti-statist means he is likely to interpret any move to tax activity X as a incentive to the (potential) taxpayer to avoid doing X* - in this case, dying. Slothrop and IdleRich picked up on this, as did Vimothy after initially typing "No" by mistake - his correction making it clear he agrees with Slothrop. So basically you've got it completely arse-about-face - but hey, why pass up a perfectly specious excuse to fling a few insults?

*or rather, it is this tendency that makes him anti-statist

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Look, it's not exactly difficult: Vimothy's position as a libertarian/anti-statist means he is likely to interpret any move to tax activity X as a incentive to the (potential) taxpayer to avoid doing X* - in this case, dying. Slothrop and IdleRich picked up on this, as did Vimothy after initially typing "No" by mistake - his correction making it clear he agrees with Slothrop. So basically you've got it completely arse-about-face - but hey, why pass up a perfectly specious excuse to fling a few insults?

This isn't hilarious anymore. It is downright SICK. You've been endlessly fucking around on this forum waiting for the excuse to fling That insult.

Vimothy, in his active madness, doesn't even have the resources to understand what his actual position is, and neither do you.

It's beyond your capacity to understand, your naked prejudice on display here as appalling as Vimothy's. Listen up, numbnut: you, like Idlerich, defend Vimothy's incoherent, crazed adolescent ravings by (pathetically) arguing that he is really in favour of increased inheritance taxes cuz it'll have people rebelling against dyin' ...

What Slothrop meant to say [assuming he's not yet another disavowed Vim supporter] was that "Vim would tell us that increasing inheritance tax decreases people's incentive to LIVE, not die."

Tea finally regresses right back to his lingering Dissensus psychopathology once again: you'd even defend Adolf fucking Hitler if he slighted me, you clueless little neo-fascist scumbag. Once again, my having all these months completely avoided any comment on your incessant spam on this forum, knowing your illness, you choose to rush back in and expose your worthless gibberish by defending the most racist, autistic ideologue that ever posted hereabouts, and at my espense.

Ontological prejudice indeed [take note, Crackerwhack]. But we know precisely how to deal with such racist little dead-end Brit-losers ...

And now ... Back to the hilarity.

 

[nomadologist]

This isn't hilarious anymore. It is downright SICK. You've been endlessly fucking around on this forum waiting for the excuse to fling That insult.

Vimothy, in his active madness, doesn't even have the resources to understand what his actual position is, and neither do you.

It's beyond your capacity to understand, your naked prejudice on display here as appalling as Vimothy's. Listen up, numbnut: you, like Idlerich, defend Vimothy's incoherent, crazed adolescent ravings by (pathetically) arguing that he is really in favour of increased inheritance taxes cuz it'll have people rebelling against dyin' ...

What Slothrop meant to say [assuming he's not yet another disavowed Vim supporter] was that "Vim would tell us that increasing inheritance tax decreases people's incentive to LIVE, not die."

Tea finally regresses right back to his lingering Dissensus psychopathology once again: you'd even defend Adolf fucking Hitler if he slighted me, you clueless little neo-fascist scumbag. Once again, my having all these months completely avoided any comment on your incessant spam on this forum, knowing your illness, you choose to rush back in and expose your worthless gibberish by defending the most racist, autistic ideologue that ever posted hereabouts, and at my espense.

Ontological prejudice indeed [take note, Crackerwhack]. But we know precisely how to deal with such racist little dead-end Brit-losers ...

And now ... Back to the hilarity.

whoa

 

[Slothrop]

I meant that since Vim would say that taxing people when they earn (ie income tax) decreases their incentive to earn, so he would have to say that taxing them when they die (via inheritance tax) decreases their incentive to die, thus they live longer.

This was essentially a throwaway gag, I wasn't expecting it to take over the thread, but if it had a point it's as a rather silly reductio ad absurdum taking the piss out of Vim's view that income tax + benefits = a nation of unproductive layabouts.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

whoa

There's nothing so fancifully exotic as 'whoa' about it, nomad. You earlier wrote about the need for understanding Ayn Rand's 'empowered individualism' in its historical context. Well then, you might like to take your own advice and attempt to understand the historical context of the above remarks.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

I meant that since Vim would say that taxing people when they earn (ie income tax) decreases their incentive to earn, so he would have to say that taxing them when they die (via inheritance tax) decreases their incentive to die, thus they live longer.

This was essentially a throwaway gag, I wasn't expecting it to take over the thread, but if it had a point it's as a rather silly reductio ad absurdum taking the piss out of Vim's view that income tax + benefits = a nation of unproductive layabouts.

Yes, I know perfectly well what you meant; I was pointing out the - obvious - contradictory implications [in another essentially throwaway gag], ie that Vim must therefore support increases in inheritance tax. But as we know, taxation of any kind - in Vim's Randian world - is an Absolute Evil, and so must be opposed even when it lol increases the incentive to die. But if anything, this sad episode has finally confirmed just how completely and utterly fucked-up-unreformable racist fellow-travellers Idlerant and Teabrain actually are. I'll not be giving either of them any leeway whatsoever from now on, and ditto for their smug apologists.

 

[IdleRich]

"So you're now arguing, in your Blairite idlereason, that Vim is in favour of increases in inheritance taxes. Hilarious ... Only at Dissensus!"

No, I just said that higher inheritance tax makes dying more expensive and therefore "de-incentivises" it.

What Slothrop meant to say [assuming he's not yet another disavowed Vim supporter] was that "Vim would tell us that increasing inheritance tax decreases people's incentive to LIVE, not die."

"I meant that since Vim would say that taxing people when they earn (ie income tax) decreases their incentive to earn, so he would have to say that taxing them when they die (via inheritance tax) decreases their incentive to die, thus they live longer."

Oops, wrong again! You're really not very bright are you?

"But if anything, this sad episode has finally confirmed just how completely and utterly fucked-up-unreformable racist fellow-travellers Idlerant"

Racist meaning "pointing out when HMLT is wrong" presumably? Can you please tell me what I have said that is meant to be racist - or else remove that accusation?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Tea finally regresses right back to his lingering Dissensus psychopathology once again: you'd even defend Adolf fucking Hitler if he slighted me, you clueless little neo-fascist scumbag.

Whereas you'd defend Hitler if Z(zzzz)izek did likewise.

 

[vimothy]

I meant that since Vim would say that taxing people when they earn (ie income tax) decreases their incentive to earn, so he would have to say that taxing them when they die (via inheritance tax) decreases their incentive to die, thus they live longer.

This was essentially a throwaway gag, I wasn't expecting it to take over the thread, but if it had a point it's as a rather silly reductio ad absurdum taking the piss out of Vim's view that income tax + benefits = a nation of unproductive layabouts.

Hardly rocket science...