End inheritance tax exemptions

[T McGibney]

Now aren't you the one that doesn't like other people doing that thing of paraphrasing or assigning quotes erroneously to you Tommy?

Where did I paraphrase you erroneously?

You propose a policy and in the next breath, say....

The details can be left to the bean-counters.

It's like the people who say they want rent controls while refusing to countenance the abundant problems arising in their implementation.

 

[Purple]

Where did I paraphrase you erroneously?

In your post.

You propose a policy and in the next breath, say....

Yes, the bean counters can work out the details. That's why accountants and book keepers and economists advise the people who actually do.

It's like the people who say they want rent controls while refusing to countenance the abundant problems arising in their implementation.

No it's not.

They are abundant problems with most taxation policy. Some countries have high property taxes and low income taxes, some have the opposite. Some have low inheritance taxes, some have high inheritance taxes. Those differences stem from the policies and objectives of the government of those countries. Each has its advantages and its disadvantages. The people in charge set the policy and the minions advise then work out the details.

 

[T McGibney]

I can only repeat the point I made above:

....if your argument is that intergenerational family farm transfers should be taxed, the onus is on you to explain how this can be done without wrecking altogether the phenomenon of the family farm.

The guts of 20 years ago, there was a chap on these pages who used regularly say that the government should clamp down heavily on residential property investors, developers and builders.

When asked who would produce housing if these interests were made exit the market, he used figuratively shrug his shoulders and say it wasn't for him to decide that.

His wish came true and the Cowen post-crash government implemented such a policy, ultimately causing a disastrous and now intractable housing crisis.

Policy ideas are mere pipedreams unless their advocates can demonstrate pretty precisely how they can be implemented without causing undue harm.

 

[Purple]

I can only repeat the point I made above:

And I can only disagree with you. Such a view would mean nothing would ever change and there are always reasons not to change.

The guts of 20 years ago, there was a chap on these pages who used regularly say that the government should clamp down heavily on residential property investors, developers and builders.

When asked who would produce housing if these interests were made exit the market, he used figuratively shrug his shoulders and say it wasn't for him to decide that.

His wish came true and the Cowen post-crash government implemented such a policy, ultimately causing a disastrous and now intractable housing crisis.

Policy ideas are mere pipedreams unless their advocates can demonstrate pretty precisely how they can be implemented without causing undue harm.

You are making so many leaps and ignoring so much context that the thread through you conjecture can only been seem in a pipedreams which would have to be induced by more than just regular tobacco.

If you want to be taken seriously then you'll have to show how the post-crash Cowen Government caused the housing crisis, independently of all of the other housing crisis in other developed countries around the world which happened at the same time. In my opinion their policies made things worse but for your proposition to stand up you'll need to demonstrate pretty precisely now they caused it.

 

[T McGibney]

And I can only disagree with you. Such a view would mean nothing would ever change and there are always reasons not to change.

There are always compelling reasons not to change whenever the change is ill-defined and ill-thought out.

You are making so many leaps and ignoring so much context that the thread through you conjecture can only been seem in a pipedreams which would have to be induced by more than just regular tobacco.

No, you're the one refusing to consider the effects of the policy you advocate.

If you want to be taken seriously then you'll have to show how the post-crash Cowen Government caused the housing crisis, independently of all of the other housing crisis in other developed countries around the world which happened at the same time. In my opinion their policies made things worse but for your proposition to stand up you'll need to demonstrate pretty precisely now they caused it.

Beside the point here, mentioned only in passing to illustrate someone else's folly.

 

[basilbrush]

Thank you all for your thoughts. Let's not forget, though, that this is a difficult and emotive topic, and so we should try especially hard to make sure what we say is not antagonistic so that we can try to have a productive conversation rather than have it devolve into bickering.

It is still not clear to me what is wrong with removing the exemptions so that everyone pays the same rate of inheritance tax. Even with the tax, the children will be obtaining assets for less than 33% of their value. If they haven't yet saved up enough to pay that, then most should be able to get a loan to cover any shortfall if they really want to own the asset.

Jeremy Clarkson discussed the removal of the inheritance tax exemption for farms in the UK in his Sunday Times column this week. Although his initial reaction was outrage, he eventually came to realise that this will stop wealthy people buying farms, and thus artificially driving up prices, as a means of avoiding the tax. This might help farm prices to return to a level at which a reasonable yield is possible, and so restore it to a more properly functioning market.

 

[planck]

It is still not clear to me what is wrong with removing the exemptions so that everyone pays the same rate of inheritance tax.

in a Republic everyone should be treated equally in terms of inheritance tax, but there is no chance it will happen

 

[Purple]

There are always compelling reasons not to change whenever the change is ill-defined and ill-thought out.

I agree, though that's not the case here.

No, you're the one refusing to consider the effects of the policy you advocate.

No, I'm acknowledging that none of us here know what the consequences will be. None of us are experts on the topic.

Beside the point here, mentioned only in passing to illustrate someone else's folly.

It's a good example of how you ignore the details on topics in order to present an argument which supports your opinion. It's difficult to have a discussion with you when you do that.

 

[Purple]

Jeremy Clarkson discussed the removal of the inheritance tax exemption for farms in the UK in his Sunday Times column this week. Although his initial reaction was outrage, he eventually came to realise that this will stop wealthy people buying farms, and thus artificially driving up prices, as a means of avoiding the tax. This might help farm prices to return to a level at which a reasonable yield is possible, and so restore it to a more properly functioning market.

Excellent point. As we see a larger and larger concentration of wealth away from labour and into capital the problem of untaxed intergenerational wealth will increase. When middle and high income working people are priced out of home ownership that's not a recipe for a stable and healthy society. Anyone who thinks that the answer to that issue is to just build more houses is either not thinking about it enough or is unable to see out housing market in an international context.