-
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
GoatandTricycle-
Some sort of deferral rule until the youngest is 21yo would probably sort that.
Also you should probably have some sort of life insurance to cover this. Which then begs the question of how you legislate against the very wealthy using adapted life insurance wrappers to transfer wealth.
impossible to implement?
Well in this hypothetical you already have a working UBI.
I get there are issues with the laffer curve, but I think the principle probably applies to tax avoidance. anecdotally I know that mainstream CT avoidance products became almost impossible to sell when the rate dropped. The cost of setting up the schemes + a margin for the operators meant the savings weren't worth the potential hassle. So I think there has to be an element of reality in what you hoose to implement and when.
hugo7
I'm against anyone inheriting anything. All goes to the state to fund social housing and UBI.