Zoe Williams suggests we're coming at the #inheritancetax 'debate' from the wrong direction:
'...we should go in studs first: suggest setting inheritance tax at 100%. No windfalls for anyone, ever; total generational redistribution delivered by death, the merry reaper. You may have questions, such as “what’s it all for, if I can’t burnish the prospects of my 58-year-old heirs?”& those questions may be legit. At least the debate will be different, and more interesting'
@ChrisMayLA6 if inheritance tax was 100% I bet there would be very different views on the value of society and how the state supports people.
Even if it would not result in everyone starting at the same point in life. I suspect it would yield a more equitable society.
@intrbiz @ChrisMayLA6 Intriguing to consider how that would affect pensioners’ behaviour. My guess is that there would be a lot more lifetime gifts to children (and how would you even track that, let alone tax it?), and lot more spending. I don’t think it would stop parents who cared from investing in their children in every conceivable way.
Kid needs a new car? Buy one brand new, run it for a month, then sell it to kid at second-hand value… etc.
@KimSJ @ChrisMayLA6 oh yes, no doubt would change behaviours. Those examples would still put cash into the economy though.
Likely it would work well combined with simplifying out tax system. Personally I think just tax any income at the same level regardless of source.
@intrbiz @ChrisMayLA6 Nice in principle, but hard in practice… We go out for a meal. You forget your wallet, so I pay. You later send me the cash to reimburse me for your share. Is that ‘income’? Do I get taxed on it?