It is now Two Thousand and Fifty .

[sgtkate 10]

There you go sgt.

 

So what I said stands, that he'd rather end up penniless upon death than give leftover money and property to others who are not his relatives(successors I assume means this). Giving it to his successors before death and spending every last penny does exactly that...

[unbeliever 10]

So what I said stands, that he'd rather end up penniless upon death than give leftover money and property to others who are not his relatives(successors I assume means this). Giving it to his successors before death and spending every last penny does exactly that...

 

In the context of 40-50% of what many of us earn being spent by the state notionally for the greater good anyway, why would we do anything else?

How much of a persons lifetime earnings should the state confiscate before you consider it "fair"?

[sgtkate 10]

You have to recognise the legitimacy of personal property in order to understand.

 

Having invested time and effort and taken risks to acquire personal property and wealth it only matches one rather radical definition of "fair" for it to be confiscated upon death (much as in life).

The state has already taken their cut at the time the wealth was earned, upon death you think they should have whatever is left?

Such property and wealth should clearly go to whomever the former owner chooses to pass it on to?

 

Myself I shall take whatever steps are necessary to see that I continue to support my wife and my family from Valhalla rather than allowing the state to waste it on windmills.

 

So you've only invested time and effort so you can pass it on to your family when you die? How caring and thoughtful of you. So you didn't do what you've done so that you can enjoy a better life while you are alive then too?

And, yes I do think that everything left should be taken by the state upon death. This way it encouraged people to spend more when they are alive which in turn generate taxes on the goods being bought. A small amount can be passed on with no tax to anyone you choose, perhaps up to £100k in today's money, but the rest goes to the state coffers to spend on whatever the state believes it should be spent on. So make sure the government represents you as best you can.

 

And yes I am indeed putting my money where my mouth is having told my father to donate any of my inheritance to charity and he has changed his will.

 

In fact, perhaps lets make this fairer. Any money left upon your death expect the £100k stated before can be donated to a charity of your choice, or go to the state. That way you have some control but it still goes to help others rather than our own offspring.

[Obelix 11]

I still read your post the wrong way I think...to me it says you'd rather end up penniless than leave your house to be distributed fairly, I've honestly read it a couple of times to make sure I've not misinterpreted it.

 

I never said I'd spend it. I'd make sure that it was given on to whom I wanted to receive it rather than have some social utopia confiscate it and give nothing to my successors.

 

---------- Post added 28-03-2017 at 13:51 ----------

 

So you've only invested time and effort so you can pass it on to your family when you die? How caring and thoughtful of you. So you didn't do what you've done so that you can enjoy a better life while you are alive then too?

And, yes I do think that everything left should be taken by the state upon death. This way it encouraged people to spend more when they are alive which in turn generate taxes on the goods being bought. A small amount can be passed on with no tax to anyone you choose, perhaps up to £100k in today's money, but the rest goes to the state coffers to spend on whatever the state believes it should be spent on. So make sure the government represents you as best you can.

 

Defeating the biological and evolutionary imperative of privilege by legislation never seems to work that way though.

[unbeliever 10]

So you've only invested time and effort so you can pass it on to your family when you die? How caring and thoughtful of you. So you didn't do what you've done so that you can enjoy a better life while you are alive then too?

 

I have no idea how you got that from what I said.

I'm content even pleased to contribute to the greater good from my earnings. I don't want them taking another massive bite out when the Valkyrie come for me.

At some point it has to be enough.

[sgtkate 10]

I never said I'd spend it. I'd make sure that it was given on to whom I wanted to receive it rather than have some social utopia confiscate it and give nothing to my successors.

 

---------- Post added 28-03-2017 at 13:51 ----------

 

 

Defeating the biological and evolutionary imperative of privilege by legislation never seems to work that way though.

 

I'm speaking ideologically, I'm sure the richest will find a way around any rule change we throw up, but surely it would be far better for humanity as a whole for everyone to start off on roughly the same financial footing? It's the disparity between rich and poor that is the issue, not the amounts. Some people are born into a position of never having to worry about money at any point in their lives simply because of their parents. I don't agree with this position. I will do as much as I can to help my daughter achieve while she is growing up, but I will not overly financially support her so she loses the value of money.

 

---------- Post added 28-03-2017 at 13:55 ----------

 

I have no idea how you got that from what I said.

I'm content even pleased to contribute to the greater good from my earnings. I don't want them taking another massive bite out when the Valkyrie come for me.

At some point it has to be enough.

 

I was being unfairly militant towards you...

[tinfoilhat 11]

I'm speaking ideologically, I'm sure the richest will find a way around any rule change we throw up, but surely it would be far better for humanity as a whole for everyone to start off on roughly the same financial footing? It's the disparity between rich and poor that is the issue, not the amounts. Some people are born into a position of never having to worry about money at any point in their lives simply because of their parents. I don't agree with this position. I will do as much as I can to help my daughter achieve while she is growing up, but I will not overly financially support her so she loses the value of money.

 

---------- Post added 28-03-2017 at 13:55 ----------

 

 

I was being unfairly militant towards you...

 

Would you send your daughter to the local comprehensive (or academy) or would you go private/grammar school if you had the dosh? Would you move into a "better" area (at an average of £18k more) to get private kate into a better school?

 

I dont mean it to come accross as an ambush, but once youve got yourself up from the pack - assuming we all start at the same point - wouldnt you want your new found wealth to give your offspring a leg up?

[sgtkate 10]

Would you send your daughter to the local comprehensive (or academy) or would you go private/grammar school if you had the dosh? Would you move into a "better" area (at an average of £18k more) to get private kate into a better school?

 

I dont mean it to come accross as an ambush, but once youve got yourself up from the pack - assuming we all start at the same point - wouldnt you want your new found wealth to give your offspring a leg up?

 

It's fine, we all have ethical 'holes'. I will answer honestly:

 

Would I get my daughter into a grammar school? well yes, they are state run so my money wouldn't have anything to do with it.

Would I pay for her to go to a private school? No. Absolutely not.

Would I let her go to a private school if she got a full scholarship? Yes, probably.

Would I move solely on the basis of school catchment area? No.

Would I move partly on the basis of school catchment area? Possibly, depending on other factors.

 

Strangely, no, I don't really want to give her a leg-up financially. As I believe she'll be a better person in general by having to make her own way. Of course if she was in a complete financial mess or about to be homeless I'd step in, but only the minimum amount to stop the situation becoming harmful. I'm aware some people might not be able to afford even that so perhaps I'm already being a hypocrite.

[Robin-H 11]

A lot of people want the UK to take on a more nordic model when it comes to taxation and welfare, as although they tend to have high taxation they also have high levels of welfare and general wellbeing and happiness.

 

It is interesting to note that the UK has a much higher inheritance tax rate (at 40%) than Finland (19%), Denmark (15%), Iceland (10%) and Norway (0%), although I'm not sure at what levels these percentages are taken.

[sgtkate 10]

A lot of people want the UK to take on a more nordic model when it comes to taxation and welfare, as although they tend to have high taxation they also have high levels of welfare and general wellbeing and happiness.

 

It is interesting to note that the UK has a much higher inheritance tax rate (at 40%) than Finland (19%), Denmark (15%), Iceland (10%) and Norway (0%), although I'm not sure at what levels these percentages are taken.

 

I'd not sure inheritance tax is the right answer, despite what I've put in this thread. We just need a much more progressive taxation model that's hard to avoid or evade, encourages spending within reason and savings so people don't get into financial trouble by not being able to fall back on savings, encourages sensible risk taking by SMEs, stops corporations using low wages to support profit...erm, easy huh?

[unbeliever 10]

The system has to provide people with pragmatic motivation to produce for society. The way you do that is to allow them to keep for themselves and their nearest and dearest, some of the proceeds of that productivity.

 

I think we are all drawn in some way to a society which does not reward ability, but effort. But the best we can do is reward achievement which depends on both effort and ability. You can get away with weakening the link between achievement and reward, but if you make it too weak then there is no longer sufficient link between effort and reward and society no longer functions.

[Obelix 11]

I'd not sure inheritance tax is the right answer, despite what I've put in this thread. We just need a much more progressive taxation model that's hard to avoid or evade, encourages spending within reason and savings so people don't get into financial trouble by not being able to fall back on savings, encourages sensible risk taking by SMEs, stops corporations using low wages to support profit...erm, easy huh?

 

That's a whole new thread......:-) I'll think on a response.....