n3il-
Fair enough then.
-
As a parent this admittedly triggers me, and an emotional argument doesn’t always make for a logical one.
To my mind it creates conflict between the value of a person and their finances.
If I/ we were to die tomorrow my 3 and 6 yo would loose us as security, it seems unreasonable that they should be disadvantaged by both lacking a/ both parent(s) and financial security/ support?
There seem to be so many fundamental flaws that the level of change needed would be impossible to implement?
CSB TLDR maybe I’m turning in to a Tory
-
I'm finding it hard to imagine the inherit nothing scenario too (closet Tory). Lots of stuff has little to no financial value but I'm very sentimental. I'm also something of a materialist and value things that last - furniture etc. Actually that second one can be sorted by making the would-be-inheritor pay the state for keeping granny's kitchen table etc. I'd still want first dibs on it. I guess the problem is that loads of that stuff which should be valued isn't and ends up in skips. If you had to pay for it, there'd be even more wastage.
You are reading a single comment by @n3il and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
hugo7
GoatandTricycle
hoefla
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.