Monday
21Aug2006
Byers: Abolish Inheritance Tax
Monday, August 21, 2006 at 1:31PM
Those among you old enough to remember when Labour was a socialist political party, may be surprised to read the latest suggestions form Stephen Byers. Mr. Byers – he of the RailTrack fiasco – has called for Inheritance Tax to be abolished. Yes that’s right, a ‘socialist’ politician calling for protections on hereditary wealth. (Sources: BBC)
Now I know Byers is, along with Alan Milburn, part of Blair’s ultra-modernising wing of the party, but I just can’t reconcile abolishing Inheritance Tax with modern fiscal politics. Surely any government that favours the meritocracy can see how an inheritance is an unearned income?
Now far be it from me to discourage a reduction in taxation, I’m a libertarian after all - but I am not against tax per se (it’s a small country after all, not the Midwest of America). But I do believe in value for money; I would be happy to pay Scandinavian levels of taxation, if we received Scandinavian level public services (including state provided 21-year-old Swedish au pairs…). The fact is this government doesn’t give us value for money, as it is, so the more money in my back pocket the better. I can then ensure I do get value for money.
Anyway, back to Byers and his crazy plans. This is a non-starter of course, merely a ruse to upset Mr. Brown and undermine the Tories as a low-tax party. Mr. Byers should go back to his laboratory and cook up another potion – this one has been found out.
Now I know Byers is, along with Alan Milburn, part of Blair’s ultra-modernising wing of the party, but I just can’t reconcile abolishing Inheritance Tax with modern fiscal politics. Surely any government that favours the meritocracy can see how an inheritance is an unearned income?
Now far be it from me to discourage a reduction in taxation, I’m a libertarian after all - but I am not against tax per se (it’s a small country after all, not the Midwest of America). But I do believe in value for money; I would be happy to pay Scandinavian levels of taxation, if we received Scandinavian level public services (including state provided 21-year-old Swedish au pairs…). The fact is this government doesn’t give us value for money, as it is, so the more money in my back pocket the better. I can then ensure I do get value for money.
Anyway, back to Byers and his crazy plans. This is a non-starter of course, merely a ruse to upset Mr. Brown and undermine the Tories as a low-tax party. Mr. Byers should go back to his laboratory and cook up another potion – this one has been found out.
Reader Comments (3)
I like your essays, they are fluid and clear. And yes who should give most value to money than that who earns it?
Anyhow, Tyger, those who should pay the most don't, just because their fortunes are so "diluted" among thousands of businesses and charities that it is imposible to find them and trace them to the "real owners".
However I remember the ancient China, its mandarins and meritocracy with nostalgia. There were no hereditary titles then. Power was acquired through intelligence and...ruse. I cannot but keep recalling that if the US were ancient China, Bush wouldn't be President.
~ Warren Buffet - the worlds second richest man (Forbes), who gave away 85% of his fortune.
He also argued that he wanted his kids to predominantly make their own success. Of course they won't starve on the breadline - but billions will not suffocate them either.
"~ Warren Buffet - the worlds second richest man (Forbes),"
Known, the Unknown are just that "unknown".
And I think it was you who wrote something about being rich not being totally honest, wasn't it?
As to one's own children it is true that a parent, rich, not so rich or poor, should prepare a child for the life she/he must find when she/he grows. That's the best asset they can leave to them.