Post
by magma » Fri Nov 29, 2013 4:27 pm
I've never really thought about the rates or thresholds (40% does seem high but £400k doesn't seem too terrible - if you can leave your house to your kids, that's probably fair enough), but in principle I really don't see a problem. However much you leave and however hard you worked for it, it's still free money that the child has not had to toil for whatsoever - if they went and slaved over an overtime packed career to put 400k in the bank or buy themselves a 3-bed, they'd get taxed on more of it (40% on everything over 35k) - when getting money for doing zero work apart from being born to rich parents, it seems a tiny bit spoilt to think that the country that provided an environment to create that wealth doesn't deserve at least a taste of it. As a citizen of a beautiful country, I realise that every hour's work I do is both for me, my family and for my country. I'm proud of that.
It's a great bonus for kids to get inheritance and I hope my parents have something left over when they pop their clogs (though judging by how many holidays they've taken since retiring, I'm not banking on it ), but just like we don't naturally like the idea of rich kids getting unfair head-starts in life due to nepotism, I don't really see why a 'progressive' country should allow families to eat off an ancestors success for multiple generations. Would we really want Richard Branson's great, great, great Grandkids to never have to lift a finger because an ancestor they'd never met was so successful? Isn't that sort of hereditary privilege exactly what we've been trying to get away from since the turn of the 20th Century?
Meus equus tuo altior est
"Let me eat when I'm hungry, let me drink when I'm dry.
Give me dollars when I'm hard up, religion when I die."
nowaysj wrote:I wholeheartedly believe that Michael Brown's mother and father killed him.