'Immoral!' Fury as Left demand Inheritance Tax be increased to 100% to fund welfare state
A proposal to fund the welfare state with a 100 per cent inheritance is a “crackpot” idea that should be “flat out ignored", a leading expert has warned.
Amid a wave of criticism leveled at the idea of stopping relatives passing on their wealth to their offspring, John O’Connell, the Chief Executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, has spoken out against the “unfair and immoral” tax.
Mr O’Connell said "This is just yet another crackpot policy idea from the loony-left and should be flat out ignored.
“Inheritance tax is already an unfair and immoral double tax, that hits families at the worst possible time.
“For many hard-working ordinary people, building a legacy for their children and grandchildren is a key reason they get up to go to work every day, but on too many occasions that legacy disappears when the taxman comes knocking at their door."
It comes following a comment by Abi Wilkinson restating the idea of a 100 per cent inheritance tax, arguing there are “strong, practical reasons for making essential public services free at the point of access” which could be met by a complete tax on inheritance.
In the piece, Ms Wilkinson argues for more wealth distribution in order to fund and improve public services and claims that while the desire to pass on wealth to descendants is under stable, she claims: “Why should we be slaves to our biology? Social progress has frequently depended on our ability to transcend individualistic urges and work together for the common good.”
She writes: “Morally speaking, people who stand to inherit large sums haven’t done anything to earn that money.
“Is there any situation in which the previous instructions of someone no longer actually present in the mortal realm should be prioritised over the needs, interests and opinions of those who are still alive and kicking?”
Ms Wilkinson has provoked a backlash with Ben Southwood, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute, saying there are some parts of the comment piece she is “simply wrong”.
He claims that “elderly folk retiring earlier and earning less would make space for younguns to fill those spots” is “the Lump of Labour Fallacy” - is a flawed idea, adding there is a fixed amount of work to be done within an economy which can be distributed to create more or fewer jobs.
He said: “The higher the inheritance tax, the higher the implicit income tax, and the more unbalanced the tradeoff between your consumption and your kids'.
“At 100 per cent, it is infinite: no matter what you do, you cannot make your kids' lives better off after you die.”
Mr Southward concludes “a 100 per cent inheritance tax would barely make rich old people worse off, but it would clobber workers with no chance of inheriting.”
Amid a wave of criticism leveled at the idea of stopping relatives passing on their wealth to their offspring, John O’Connell, the Chief Executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, has spoken out against the “unfair and immoral” tax.
Mr O’Connell said "This is just yet another crackpot policy idea from the loony-left and should be flat out ignored.
“Inheritance tax is already an unfair and immoral double tax, that hits families at the worst possible time.
“For many hard-working ordinary people, building a legacy for their children and grandchildren is a key reason they get up to go to work every day, but on too many occasions that legacy disappears when the taxman comes knocking at their door."
It comes following a comment by Abi Wilkinson restating the idea of a 100 per cent inheritance tax, arguing there are “strong, practical reasons for making essential public services free at the point of access” which could be met by a complete tax on inheritance.
She writes: “Morally speaking, people who stand to inherit large sums haven’t done anything to earn that money.
“Is there any situation in which the previous instructions of someone no longer actually present in the mortal realm should be prioritised over the needs, interests and opinions of those who are still alive and kicking?”
Ms Wilkinson has provoked a backlash with Ben Southwood, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute, saying there are some parts of the comment piece she is “simply wrong”.
He claims that “elderly folk retiring earlier and earning less would make space for younguns to fill those spots” is “the Lump of Labour Fallacy” - is a flawed idea, adding there is a fixed amount of work to be done within an economy which can be distributed to create more or fewer jobs.
He said: “The higher the inheritance tax, the higher the implicit income tax, and the more unbalanced the tradeoff between your consumption and your kids'.
“At 100 per cent, it is infinite: no matter what you do, you cannot make your kids' lives better off after you die.”
Mr Southward concludes “a 100 per cent inheritance tax would barely make rich old people worse off, but it would clobber workers with no chance of inheriting.”
Comments
Post a Comment