|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Inheritance Tax
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Which might mean, in fact, that you don't think that there should be a government, because any government, even of the most minimally nighwatchman kind, needs to take some money from individuals and to spend it on their behalf but not in ways that each of them would necessarily choose.
Is that your position? Or do the words 'as possible' mean that you're not actually an anarchist? If so, you then get into questions about what that 'as possible' means (negative and positive conceptions of liberty and so on) and about who decides the bounds of possibility.
I identify as libertarian these days, but not anarchist. We need some form of government to protect against lawlessness and the like.
quote:
As for your rant against government and politicians, what is your evidence for the claims that you make?
Find me someone who doesn't think the three parties with any chance of forming a government are essentially the same. Labour have already pledged to keep exactly the same economic policies as the Conservatives if they win the next election. I hardly need to defend my comments on expenses, though I will add the generous pay rises that MPs always seem to get every year.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which brings us back to the fact that the dead don't have "priorities" and usually aren't considered "people" in the legal sense of the term.
That's what a will is for - it outlines what the person wants to do with their assets once they're dead.
quote:
And can you make up your mind about whether you're discussing "individual people" or "the people" generically? You seem to switch back and forth between definitions for the sake of rhetorical convenience.
It's both. "The people" as a group is made up of individual people. It's essentially a shorthand for "each individual person".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
I've never seen why gifts and legacies are not simply taxed as income. Why eparate taxes applied to the donor rather than the recipient?
Then again politicians would far rather tax generosity than greed.
Because gifts/legacies as such are not income by any of the generally accepted definitions.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which brings us back to the fact that the dead don't have "priorities" and usually aren't considered "people" in the legal sense of the term.
That's what a will is for - it outlines what the person wants to do with their assets once they're dead.
Doesn't the very idea of a will imply the existence of both a body of law and some kind of enforcement mechanism? In other words, a government? I've always suspected that "libertarian" was shorthand for "I want the benefits of having a government, but I don't want to pay for it".
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
And can you make up your mind about whether you're discussing "individual people" or "the people" generically? You seem to switch back and forth between definitions for the sake of rhetorical convenience.
It's both. "The people" as a group is made up of individual people. It's essentially a shorthand for "each individual person".
If you say so. Let's see how that works in your original statement.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I've always argued in favour of policies that let [each individual person] keep their money in their own pockets, rather than having the government take it away.
Which brings us right back to the point that "each individual person" can't "keep their money in their own pockets" after death, unless you're advocating for some kind of pharaonic burial system where "each individual person" is buried with all their worldly possessions. Or maybe some kind of Viking-style rite where the deceased are set adrift in their burning condos. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which brings us right back to the point that "each individual person" can't "keep their money in their own pockets" after death, unless you're advocating for some kind of pharaonic burial system where "each individual person" is buried with all their worldly possessions. Or maybe some kind of Viking-style rite where the deceased are set adrift in their burning condos.
Yes, you're right that the dead can't take their assets with them. The basic issue, then, concerns who should be assumed to be the owner of those assets after the original owner's death. It seems obvious to me that the answer should be the deceased person's partner/spouse, or if they had no partner for whatever reason (including their partner already being dead) it should be their descendents (In the absence of any direct descendents, the nearest living family member should be the one who takes ownership of the assets). All of which can, of course, be pre-emptively overridden by the original owner if they choose to write a will leaving all or part of their assets to a third party.
The assets, therefore, are always in someone's "pockets".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Just out of interest, Marvin, what are your preferred (= least unpreferred) forms of taxation, given that you do believe in some kind of state, which has to get money from somewhere? (Not trying to set a trap- just curious to know.)
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
I'd love to see more of the tax burden fall on companies (which aren't people). But in relative terms I don't mind the idea of income tax.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I'd agree with you Marvin, but I can't see a good reason why inheritance shouldn't be considered a form of income.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Pretty much for the same reason Christmas presents aren't seen as income.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'd agree with you Marvin, but I can't see a good reason why inheritance shouldn't be considered a form of income.
An inheritance is clearly not income. Each is a on-off event, and almost always there is no legal obligation upon the testator to make the bequest. It fails these 2 basic tests on income and passes none of the others as well.
[ 29. August 2013, 21:58: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
An inheritance is clearly not income. Each is a on-off event, and almost always there is no legal obligation upon the testator to make the bequest. It fails these 2 basic tests on income and none of the others either.
So an executive's bonus check isn't "income" either, by that reasoning.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'd agree with you Marvin, but I can't see a good reason why inheritance shouldn't be considered a form of income.
I apologise if my last post was a bit abrupt. For a very full discussion of what constitutes a gift (non-taxable) and what income (taxable) read the decision of Windeyer J in:
Scott v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1966] HCA 48; (1966) 117 CLR 514
Mr Scott was a solicitor, regularly acting for a client in real estate development and other transactions. He charged her what was the then scale fee for the work (scale fees for conveyancing have long since been abolished) which the client paid without demur, but one one occasion, the client said she was making him a gift of 10K pounds - a substantial sum in the early 60s. Windeyer J discussed the issues clearly and found that while the payment of the scale fees was income, as Mr Scott accepted, the additional 10K was not and therefore not taxable.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'd agree with you Marvin, but I can't see a good reason why inheritance shouldn't be considered a form of income.
I apologise if my last post was a bit abrupt. For a very full discussion of what constitutes a gift (non-taxable) and what income (taxable) read the decision of Windeyer J in:
Scott v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1966] HCA 48; (1966) 117 CLR 514
Mr Scott was a solicitor, regularly acting for a client in real estate development and other transactions. He charged her what was the then scale fee for the work (scale fees for conveyancing have long since been abolished) which the client paid without demur, but one one occasion, the client said she was making him a gift of 10K pounds - a substantial sum in the early 60s. Windeyer J discussed the issues clearly and found that while the payment of the scale fees was income, as Mr Scott accepted, the additional 10K was not and therefore not taxable.
I don't really read the discussion here or the prior question as a descriptive one but rather a prescriptive one. We're not really debating what is or is not legally permissible but what we believe is fair or just. For all its many benefits, the Ship probably isn't the best place to come for legal advice/estate planning.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
That is evil! Here in California, we just spit the inheritance three ways when our mother died: it was transparent! No taxes.
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
That is evil! Here in California, we just spit the inheritance three ways when our mother died: it was transparent! No taxes.
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Marvin: quote:
I'd love to see more of the tax burden fall on companies (which aren't people).
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) You do understand that if this happens, the companies will pass on the extra costs to their customers, don't you?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
An inheritance is clearly not income. Each is a on-off event, and almost always there is no legal obligation upon the testator to make the bequest. It fails these 2 basic tests on income and none of the others either.
So an executive's bonus check isn't "income" either, by that reasoning.
An executive's bonus is annual (so not "one-off") and written into his/her contract (so putting a legal obligation on the company to give it). It passes both tests.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Marvin: quote:
I'd love to see more of the tax burden fall on companies (which aren't people).
You do understand that if this happens, the companies will pass on the extra costs to their customers, don't you?
Probably. But we have a choice of whether to buy from companies or not - and which companies to buy from - that allows us to manage our purchases in order to spend as much or as little as we choose. The taxman doesn't give us that choice.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
I think it would be quite interesting to say to big companies that don't pay tax in the UK - 'OK, but I'm afraid people who work for you will no longer be able to claim Tax Credits - the UK taxpayer is no longer going to subsidise your low pay - we're going to pass a law that obliges you to make up the difference by paying them extra'. Probably unworkable. I'm sure someone will be along here shortly to tell me why.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I think it would be quite interesting to say to big companies that don't pay tax in the UK - 'OK, but I'm afraid people who work for you will no longer be able to claim Tax Credits - the UK taxpayer is no longer going to subsidise your low pay - we're going to pass a law that obliges you to make up the difference by paying them extra'. Probably unworkable. I'm sure someone will be along here shortly to tell me why.
Oh, it's workable. They'd just drop everyone's base pay so that their base pay + the extra you're making them pay is equal to the pay they had before. Which means the employees, now unable to claim tax credits, get the shaft.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
But how many of them are already paying the minimum wage, or close to it?
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I think it would be quite interesting to say to big companies that don't pay tax in the UK - 'OK, but I'm afraid people who work for you will no longer be able to claim Tax Credits - the UK taxpayer is no longer going to subsidise your low pay - we're going to pass a law that obliges you to make up the difference by paying them extra'. Probably unworkable. I'm sure someone will be along here shortly to tell me why.
Wait... you have employees claiming tax credits?? Simply by virtue of being employees??
If I'm understanding you correctly, this is another one of those times when a suggestion that something is unworkable is easily countered by pointing out that there are parts of the world where it does work. This is the first time in my life I've heard this tax credits idea in relation to employment.
We do have tax credits in other areas - taxation on shares is the one that springs to mind. The tax on my piddly little shareholding (which I never even bought, it got handed to me, hence it's piddliness) is reduced based on the amount of tax already paid by the company.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I think it would be quite interesting to say to big companies that don't pay tax in the UK - 'OK, but I'm afraid people who work for you will no longer be able to claim Tax Credits - the UK taxpayer is no longer going to subsidise your low pay - we're going to pass a law that obliges you to make up the difference by paying them extra'. Probably unworkable. I'm sure someone will be along here shortly to tell me why.
Wait... you have employees claiming tax credits?? Simply by virtue of being employees??
If I'm understanding you correctly, this is another one of those times when a suggestion that something is unworkable is easily countered by pointing out that there are parts of the world where it does work. This is the first time in my life I've heard this tax credits idea in relation to employment.
The U.S. has something similar with the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is essentially a refundable tax credit available to low income workers.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I think it would be quite interesting to say to big companies that don't pay tax in the UK - 'OK, but I'm afraid people who work for you will no longer be able to claim Tax Credits - the UK taxpayer is no longer going to subsidise your low pay - we're going to pass a law that obliges you to make up the difference by paying them extra'. Probably unworkable. I'm sure someone will be along here shortly to tell me why.
Well, the amount of tax credit depends on your circumstances. There's a small component for just working, but a much larger component for having children (and isn't the childcare credit rolled in to there somewhere?). I think there might be justifiable anger with a law that told a company "you have to pay Johnny more money because he's got a baby."
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Should the recently-bereaved child of a cash-poor farmer who nevertheless owned the deed to his farm have to sell the place to some rich person in order to pay the inheritance tax? And if so, how does that do anything to fix the disparity?
The same applies to people who have established a prosperous small business, such as a restaurant. If the heirs have to pay a hefty inheritance tax, they will have to sell the business. This may result in the employees losing their jobs.
Moo
Business Property Relief applies in England and Wales to such an asset - usually at 100% relief rate. Similar with agricultural property.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I think it would be quite interesting to say to big companies that don't pay tax in the UK - 'OK, but I'm afraid people who work for you will no longer be able to claim Tax Credits - the UK taxpayer is no longer going to subsidise your low pay - we're going to pass a law that obliges you to make up the difference by paying them extra'. Probably unworkable. I'm sure someone will be along here shortly to tell me why.
Wait... you have employees claiming tax credits?? Simply by virtue of being employees??
If I'm understanding you correctly, this is another one of those times when a suggestion that something is unworkable is easily countered by pointing out that there are parts of the world where it does work. This is the first time in my life I've heard this tax credits idea in relation to employment.
We do have tax credits in other areas - taxation on shares is the one that springs to mind. The tax on my piddly little shareholding (which I never even bought, it got handed to me, hence it's piddliness) is reduced based on the amount of tax already paid by the company.
Yes, they are Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit (plus Childcare Tax Credit). The term is a bit of nonsense because it isn't limited or capped by the amount of tax one pays or could have paid. Just as an example, one doesn't pay tax on much less than £7,500 but as a single man I'd get over £1,300 Working Tax Credit at that income, which represents the tax payable on about £14,000! It's really a income top-up that hasn't the stigma of the old Supplementary Benefit.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
