You are reading a single comment by @n3il and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • I'm also still seeing no downsides to 100% inheritance tax, apart from salty rich guys.

  • I'm also still seeing no downsides to 100% inheritance tax, apart from salty rich guys.

    I can understand why a youngster who is struggling with affording rent and dickhead landlords and has no prospect of housing security and who is depending on inheriting family wealth to get stability and a comfortable life would feel 100% IHT is unfair.

    The point is that if property were cheaper, not commoditised and renters given rock solid protections, they would have less "need" to depend on inheriting their parents wealth.

    Edit: Although to be fair, 100% IHT would have quite far reaching implications in terms of HNW families in the UK. I have no idea whether it would end up being a sensible thing to aim for. I can fully get behind the principle though.

  • I'm also still seeing no downsides to 100% inheritance tax, apart from salty rich guys.

    The rich can afford to find ways that avoid it. They have access to solicitors, accountants, tax heavens etc.

  • I'm also still seeing no downsides to 100% inheritance tax, apart from salty rich guys.

    What about passing objects or heirlooms? It effectively means that only children with means can inherit anything. There's also a psychological aspect to want to leave something for your children.

    I can't remember who it is, a French economist who proposed higher IHT preventing vast transfers of wealth and using that to give a universal "inheritance" of c.200k to everyone at 25yo. I won't butcher his arguments, but I found them very convincing.

  • At the current rate of IHT it should only take a few generations for most of a fortune to be taxed.

    It doesn't though because there are way too many ways to avoid it. Rather than bumping up the rate you'd get more by making it more difficult to avoid.

About

Avatar for n3il @n3il started