No Pockets in a Shroud.
Shrouds used to have pockets, you know. It was quite the done thing in Pagan times, to take all your wordily possessions with you, to enhance your life in the hereafter.
In Normandy, northern France, they have just dug up a burial site from the Frankish Merovingian era, and found that, contrary to earlier Pagan burials where villagers had taken their jewellery with them, the influence of the Christian church, which thought that you should leave your valuables behind in order to benefit the less fortunate – and the Church, naturally – meant that there were few artefacts to be found.
The rise of the sovereign state, and their squabbles with other nation states, introduced the idea of taxation – that you should hand over some of your money long before you died – in order to finance the needs of the state. Generally that meant a war and keeping the man at the top in the manner which he desired. At least it was a clearly defined purpose.
Nowadays we give the state £469 billion every year – and we don’t have a clue what they do with it. We know that they give some of it to the 50% of people in receipt of state aid. We know that they spend some of it on wars that we don’t want. We know that it is not enough for those at the top to live on…
Around £3 billion a year is ‘raised from the dead’…
We call it an ‘inheritance tax’, but that is a misnomer, since the estate pays it before any legacies and distributions are able to be paid. Not the ‘inheritors’ at all. Why don’t we call it a ‘death tax’ – that is what it is?
Now HM Revenue & Customs are concerned that some people may be finding ways of escaping this tax – and they are determined to put a stop to it.
Under a consultation published by HM Revenue & Customs, officials would have the power to force those suspected of using an avoidance scheme to reduce their IHT bill to make an “accelerated payment”.
The rules, which are already in place for other areas of tax avoidance, have raised fears that some savers will be treated as guilty until proven innocent.
So, the latest wheeze is to to apply the ‘death tax’ before you are dead…It is not so very different to the ‘wealth tax’ which we have here in France. Possibly related to the fact that, as a generation, we are just not dying fast enough. Once upon a time, a 100th birthday card from the Queen came as a pleasant surprise – these day you have to apply on-line, there are just too many people living to 100.
The Guardian has been pushing the idea for some time that the rich should be ‘soaked’ to give more to those who don’t work – recently they came up with a dozen tax proposals to take money from those who have accumulated it. Transaction taxes, land transfer taxes – the ever popular ‘mansion tax’, and inheritance tax.
Claire Reynolds, who is married to Jonathan Reynolds, the Labour shadow energy minister, advocates attempts to “squeeze the rich in a number of ways”, by varying the level of the mansion tax by region and ‘increasing inheritance tax’.
“Why be scared of it; they’re dead,” she said.
Quite, no votes to be lost there then.
Two rationales are offered. First, that social fairness and equity demands that money passed on in this way should be taxed, otherwise social inequality widens. Second, that ‘repairing’ the welfare state is going to be so expensive that tax rates must be significantly hiked.
But social inequality will be widened.
Take Mr Tarmacspreader. He can earn £700 a week with overtime, and spend the lot on holidays in Magaluf. He can live in a council flat, in Shoreditch and leave the tenancy to his children. His children will have had the benefit of every iPod, iMac, and iGizmo invented – because Mr Tarmacspreader has never wanted to save money, only wanting to give his children ‘everything he never had’. He didn’t have to pay for his care in old age – no savings. There will be no tax bill on his death. Indeed, if his children earn a few bob themselves, they can buy the freehold and sell it on free of tax.
His schoolfriend, Mr Lowgradeofficebod, earned exactly the same amount over his lifetime – but he saved money, he took out a mortgage on a small house in nearby Bethnal Green. His children didn’t do so well for goodies – but they did inherit his house, and his meagre savings – they had cared for him himself in his old age. Unfortunately for them, there was inheritance tax to be paid, so the executors had to sell the house.
The effect of inheritance tax will be to drive the middle class out of London. Those living in council property will remain, as will their children who are allowed to inherit a tenancy.
Life is full of inequalities – why should Kate Moss have been born so beautiful that she ‘wouldn’t get out of bed for else than £10,000’ to be photographed? Isn’t that an unfair advantage in life? Isn’t that an ‘accident of birth’? Should beauty be taxed?
Why should Becks have been born with the ability to kick a ball precisely where it was wanted – isn’t that an unfair advantage in life, to be able to spend your working life practising the sport that for others is just an occasional luxury? Should talent be taxed?
Where does this obsession with the money that the ‘rich have inherited’ leave lottery winners – they haven’t ‘worked hard all their life’ for their riches?
The ‘Mansion Tax’ always reminds me of the scene in Zhivagao where Omar Sharif returns to Moscow after fighting for the freedom of his country, to find that his parents have only been allocated one room in the family home by the Bolshevik government – the other rooms are now occupied by those who didn’t go away to fight for freedom…..
At least Zhivago could physically see the people he was being forced to give some of his ‘riches’ to…
Perhaps we could all be appointed one of life’s ‘unfortunates’ each; no more taxation, just a straight forward commitment to give them 50% of whatever we earn – but with a proviso that we be let off the hook of supporting them if they come up with a winning lottery ticket….
A quick search for ‘unemployed lottery winners’ returns 4,920,000 results – looks as though the 25% of us that are net ‘givers’ to the system are already paying for the lottery tickers.
I foresee a lot of ‘equity release plans’ whereby those with property borrow money against that property and then spend the money on helping their children indirectly – paying for their holidays, buying the children’s clothes, anything that won’t attract the ‘gift tax’.
And a lot of wills that say “After payment of my just debts . . . “
- David Kennerly
August 12, 2014 at 1:56 pm -
I had heard that the Shroud of Turin had a bus transfer and a condom in the pocket.
- Wigner’s Friend
August 12, 2014 at 2:46 pm -
My guess is that if all the money in UK was distributed equally on Monday, by Friday the fiscal inequality would be about the same as it is now. And those at the bottom and the Guardianista would be complaining how unfair it all was.
- suffolkgirl
August 12, 2014 at 2:58 pm -
It seems to me that of all taxes inheritance tax is the one I care least about. We know, because the government publishes the breakdown, that the bulk of public spending doesn’t go to the workshy but to the old and sick. And on education. I’ve had my fair share of the last and the first two will clearly benefit me one day so if IH pays for some of it, well, good. Live now, pay the tax later.
Anyway, it’s not inheritance tax but property prices which are driving the middle class young out of London, although at the same time it’s also subsidising some of them, as Mum and Dad downsize or equity release from their inflated London terrace house to give the kids a leg up the property ladder in Walthamstow or Southend. As you rightly say, the tax take on IH is likely to be far lower than the Reynolds’ anticipate. It’s likely to be the charities which lose out on their bequests.
I disagree with you however about Mr Tarmacspreader, who I think is feeling the pinch more than most. For a start, as most of Shoreditch is in Hackney he won’t have a council flat any more, as they were all stock transferred to a housing association long ago. He may still be able to pass on his tenancy to one of his children when he dies, but the rest will have to move on. I don’t rate their chances of qualifying for one of the few affordable houses for rent being built in London if they take after dad, and have a job. They are unlikely to be able to afford shared equity on new build, and since the rtb subsidy decreased (again, years ago), buying the Shoreditch flat is likely to be way beyond their means.
If the little Tarmacspreaders, again, like Dad, are also in manual trades, they too will move out of the city, just like the young Lowgradeofficebods, or even the Youngseniorofficebods, and their places and jobs will be taken by those new immigrants who will put up with living crammed six to a room, ironically often in former council flats purchased long ago under the right to buy.
I think on balance I’d still rather be middle class,with a job.
- eric hardcastle
August 13, 2014 at 6:17 am -
There is a good argument to be made that passing on wealth intact, family homes etc keeps property prices artificially high.
as for those “who don’t work”, ignoring the fact there are not enough jobs for them , if they claimed what they were legally entitled to the bill would be billions higher.
- eric hardcastle
- Hysteria
August 12, 2014 at 4:09 pm -
The state is doing many things it is not well equipped to do. Although is seems to be well equipped to dream up more ways of extracting money from its citizens.
- Rightwinggit
August 12, 2014 at 5:05 pm -
”
“Why be scared of it; they’re dead,” she said.
Quite, no votes to be lost there then. ”
Their relatives and their descendants may well not be dead…how many votes lost?
Will the rule of nine apply here?
- Joe Public
August 12, 2014 at 6:02 pm -
“….to take all your wordily possessions with you, …”
Sorry Anna, can’t resist it: What, like your letters etc?
- Joe Public
August 12, 2014 at 6:13 pm -
“Now HM Revenue & Customs are concerned that some people may be finding ways of escaping this tax – and they are determined to put a stop to it. ”
Like caring for their parents, so they live longer and have less to bequeath!
- Dioclese
August 12, 2014 at 7:13 pm -
The ultimate aim is, of course, to die broke and in debt – preferably owing money to the tax man…
- Pericles
August 12, 2014 at 7:21 pm -
Taxation, its purpose and its avoidance constitute a battlefield of economic illiteracy.
EQUALITY
One hears from so many — including many so called Conservatives — admiration of measures, whether of taxation or of spending, aimed at reducing ‘inequality’. What, however, is the purpose of economic activity, the principal concern of government? Surely it is to increase the wealth needed to improve life. How is it to be achieved? Surely by the efforts of individuals to ‘get ahead’: specifically ahead of every-one else, which means to increase the economic gap between the actors and their peers.
If, then, government action serve only to reduce that gap, it hardly has any right to complain, should those actors give up their struggle and resign themselves to being forever ‘equal’ to others … to not getting ahead.
Theft — such as one sees in so many parts of, for example, the financial-services industry — ought to be handled with extreme severity (as it used to be); on the other paw, making an honest profit — even if only by the good fortune of winning a lottery — ought to be encouraged.
Estate duty serves only to exacerbate the situation and to render the accumulation of wealth even less worth the while.
TAXATION OF BUSINESS
Persons from every walk of life — the media, politicians, the ‘ordinary man’ (one might say ‘the man on the Clapham omnibus’ but, he being the reasonable man, I doubt his existence) — nause on about this company’s or that company’s ‘not paying its fair share of tax’.
Yet it is the height of economic illiteracy to suppose that business pays tax. Any business that does goes out of business. No; it transfers any tax bill it suffers straight to its pricing structure. A tax of any kind on a business is just another cost, no different from direct ones such as the cost of goods sold or other indirect ones such as rent and rates; it must be accounted for in pricing what ever the company sells to generate its revenue.
The only rational kind of tax is one levied on expenditure; and then only when collected from those that cannot pass it on: the ‘consumer’. What this means is sales tax. (It really does not have to be as complicated as Europe’s absurd V.A.T., which in England employs something like the whole of Southend; the old purchase tax was administered on behalf of the government by about a dozen officials.)
AVOIDANCE
Avoidance occurs when some-one takes some lawful action in relation to income or expenditure that results in a reduction in his tax bill. I make that point because there seems often to be confusion between avoidance and evasion, the latter being unlawful.
The reason there is so much avoidance is simple: complexity! Law makers — of every hue — bend over backward to accommodate their friends and political interests in the framing of tax statutes, with the result that those acts are full of loop-holes. Inevitably and with the help of the cleverest lawyers tax-payers try to climb through them.
It is entirely unprincipled to frame laws in this way and then, as the British Treasury does, to declare perfectly lawful means of circumventing them to be invalid. If you walk to the shops, ought you to be charged for the tax you’re avoiding by (1) not using your automobile and (2) becoming more fit and therefore living longer and collecting more of the state pension? If you run a Prius and therefore avoid the tax on the fuel consumed by a Jaguar, ought you to suffer a levy equal to the thereby avoided?
The whole idea of acting against tax avoidance fails the test of ‘reductio’.
I could go on …
ΠΞ
- Wigner’s Friend
August 12, 2014 at 7:26 pm -
Applause.
- ivan
August 12, 2014 at 8:34 pm -
Hear. Hear.
Now try getting that across to the Guardian and Daily Fail readers that have been brainwashed to think the opposite.is true.
- Pericles
August 12, 2014 at 9:25 pm -
Thank you for your generous praise, Mme. G., Wigner’s Friend and Ivan.
Ivan’s remark is an indication of how widespread the ignorance of taxation economics is: whether a Grauniadista or a Daily Failure, the ‘ordinary man’ is just as ignorant.
ΠΞ
- EyesWideShut
August 12, 2014 at 11:20 pm -
Oh Pericles, that was great. As Einstein is supposed to have said, whether he did or not, wikipedia will have the last word “You cannot solve a problem from the same mind-set which created it”.
We are merely parroting mid-twentieth century LadyBird Books lines about “equality” and “inequality” without any idea of how the present world financial order is consitituted – and how little regard it has for the small western fringes of Europe.
As far as most people in England or Ireland, this fiddling around the edges, while it may have enormous personal consequences for individuals or their families in the short-term, has nothing to do with the reality of where we are headed as countries over the next 100 years.
The tax regime is not an economic policy. It has no answer for where we go next. And yet that is what we vote on.
Playing marbles. That’s what we are doing.
- Pericles
August 13, 2014 at 12:20 am -
Bien sûr, EyesWideShut. Although the same mind-set might inhibit one’s ability to solve a problem, one ought to be able to pose a question and then to address it with a reasonable hope of finding a solution.
Lovely analogy: although my Ladybird books seem to relate only to butterflies and those colourful little beetles whose name I struggle to recall … ah, yes: ladybirds!
“… where we are headed as countries over the next 100 years.” Now there’s an interesting idea. I wonder what those contemplating the division of Europe, the Near- and Middle-East and Africa — all dead by now — would have had to say about the outcome of their work a century later.
ΠΞ
- EyesWideShut
August 13, 2014 at 1:00 am -
Well, they thought the world would just be a big and shinier version of the world they inhabited when they drew their lines on the maps. As the Chinese are supposed to say and of course never have, “Same-same- but different.” And you can bet your sweet bippie, whatever that means, they thought they could control it.
We are all the time dealing with the law of unintended consequences. One of the problems people in charge have is they think, they really do think, there is such a thing as a “long-term settlement”. Watch them use that phrase all that time. They use it for everything. They rely on the fact that good taste prohibits us from saying thatphrase is the kissing cousin of “the final solution”.
I repeat: taxation alone will deliver you nothing. Whether your aim is income redistribution, the promotion of an egalitarian society, the financing of overseas wars, the purchasing of big-penis-daddy war-mongery or floral centre-pieces in every bus station.
As the Kerryman said, when asked by a tourist how to get back to Dublin “Sure if I were you, I wouldn’t start from here at all.”
- Pericles
August 13, 2014 at 1:04 pm -
I was listening to the Toady programme this morning and heard some medical researcher talking about treatment of Ebola in ‘the long term’. Put me in mind of Keynes’s most oft quoted saying: “In the long run we’re all dead.” How appropriate!
ΠΞ
- Pericles
- EyesWideShut
- Pericles
- Jim Bates
August 13, 2014 at 3:49 am -
I was always led to believe that the art of taxation was getting the maximum amount of milk with the minimum amount of moo.
Thanks from me too Pericles, plenty for me to cud on there.- Pericles
August 13, 2014 at 1:05 pm -
A pleasure, Jim. ΠΞ
- Pericles
- EyesWideShut
- Wigner’s Friend
- Bill Sticker
August 12, 2014 at 8:52 pm -
There is nothing more despicable than Guardianistas demanding something they never worked for to be taken from the proceeds of grief to fund the Guardianistas pet causes. If I could be bothered to work up the saliva, I’d spit in their faces. Them, Religion, HMRC and all the other wastrels.
- Pericles
August 12, 2014 at 9:36 pm -
Looking at Bill’s ‘avatar’, I note his idea of U.K. as ‘one nation under Canada’. An appropriate reminder of yet another witticism of the wonderful Robin Williams, quis r.i.p.
ΠΞ
- Pericles
- JimmyGiro
August 13, 2014 at 12:14 am -
“We know that they give some of it to the 50% of people in receipt of state aid.”
According to the ‘Institute for Fiscal Studies’, the year 2011 to 2012 involved £200 Bn for total benefits; distributed thus:
42.3% to the elderly (mostly state pensions, of which the public sector workers are well represented).
20.8% to top up low income earners.
18.4% to families (i.e. single parent mums… thank you feminism).
15.5% to sick and disabled.
2.6% to the unemployed (yeah, it really is that small).
0.3% to widows.
0.1% to ‘other’.- Pericles
August 13, 2014 at 12:43 am -
Statistics are often as interesting for what they conceal as for what they reveal.
“42.3% to the elderly …”
I find it hard to begrudge those — whether in the private or the public sector — the pensions to which they have contributed. (All right: that’s not exactly the way the pension system works but it’s how people see it and, in my view, are entitled to see it.)
To those that condemn the generosity of public-sector pensions I’d say, That’s the contract of employment to which we agreed; what ever its merits in hindsight we ought to honour it.
“20.8% to top up low income earners.”
A surprisingly high figure but it does indicate that we’re tragically unwilling to value the contribution to our lives of those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
“18.4% to families (i.e. single … mums …”
It’s fashionable to heap opprobrium upon single mothers but am bound to say that most are more likely victims of callous treatment by men than anything else and their efforts usually deserve praise.
ΠΞ
- suffolkgirl
August 13, 2014 at 2:06 am -
Actually Pericles I think the pension figures in jimmy giro’s data only show those who get the basic state pension plus what used to be called serps, That is the large majority of Brits who have no other income in old age. Public sector pensions, which reduce quite rightly entitlement to state pensions are accounted for elsewhere. This is a huge burden on any state, and I am struggling to understand how your preferred option of a purchase tax would get anywhere near meeting it. That’s before you begin to address the complexity of collecting such a tax. There are also other things we like to have, like policing and health services, all of which have to be paid for somehow. As to the low paid, there are some honest politicians on all sides of the political divides who dare to argue that making businesses pay a living wage would cut down hidden state subsidy, which is what is happening under the current benefit system.
- EyesWideShut
August 13, 2014 at 2:38 am -
Ah but tax and tax and tax and tax. Many people who have been paid well in the past quite honestly believe that they have been robbed, robbed I tell you, by whatever tax rate was put on their salary. They genuinely believe that the gross is what they would be paid in their hand if it weren’t for tax.
They are very stupid. No more of them.
But tax is not an economy. Now think who makes money in England and who relies on salary or wages. the irony is what makes England a good place to do business in has been paid from tax – the people who have no choice but to pay it.
- Pericles
August 13, 2014 at 1:28 pm -
Actually what I recommend is a sales tax but along the American lines: where any-one with a sales-tax number doesn’t pay it. Purchase tax as it used to be (levied at the wholesale level) would be too complicated, in my view.
Certainly it would have to be a high rate: absent the myriad other taxes I’d see abolished, the same or a similar amount of revenue would be required from sales tax to fund the same expenditure … and we’re still trying to pay down the debt.
Yes, minimum wage (or what ever you like to call it) is much maligned. So many — especially the neo-cons (actually neo-libs) — have not understood the concept of the marginal propensity to spend and how it’s highest amongst the poorest. A big reason for the need of high remuneration has always been taxation: much as a company’s tax bills are factored in to its pricing, an employee’s tax bill is something he must take account of in negotiating a salary. EyesWideShut effectively says as much.
Another benefit I suggest would accrue from my scheme is the huge reduction in administration. No tax on salaries: no P.A.Y.E.; no corporation tax: no tax on dividends (A.C.T.).
A problem that arises with some taxes stems from their being levied with the intent of damping down demand for things; the obvious examples: alcohol and tobacco. The trouble is that these taxes generate so much revenue that, as the public reduces its addiction to the goods, the government finds itself ever more addicted to the public’s addiction! Just imagine what would happen at the Treasury if suddenly every-one actually followed the government’s advice and gave up smoking!
ΠΞ
- EyesWideShut
- suffolkgirl
- Pericles
- EyesWideShut
August 13, 2014 at 1:46 am -
Talk about “my money that I made all my life and can do what I want with, that was the whole purpose of my life to make money I can do things with for my kids, my giraffes, my general me-ness, because i earned it and I was very, very. very good at my job, bah government, bad government, robbing government” misses the point.
What is money? What is “you”? What is your general desserts for being on this world in the first place?
Now for be it from me to diss money. Oh didn’t I cry and sob when I lost my plastic last week, en route from one country to another. Oh what a state I was in. But guess- what? I was en route to my home country and I had family within four miles from the airport. The national airport.
So that was me sorted.
- T B Hall
August 13, 2014 at 3:17 pm -
Dear Anna,
As a devoted consumer, and sometime commenter on your work, I must respectfully disagree with the logic of your examples given.
I agree that on principal, inheritance tax is an immoral concept; people should be free to leave their own possessions and property to those they wish. Whether that is their own children, or the Battersea Dogs Home- it should be their choice.
Where I disagree however, is in the “property” being handed down. In both your examples, the real benefit being handed down was never created by the supposed owner.
As you say, in the council homed example, what is being inherited is a state sanctioned privilege, the value of which likely exceeds anything else Mr Tarmacspreader might own. To be able to hand down this “property” is clearly unfair on those whose parents didn’t happen to have this privilege before.
However, in your “private buyer” example, the exact same principles apply. The principal part of the value of a house in Bethnal Green was not created by Mr Lowgradeofficebod, it was created by the influx of highly paid city yuppies gentrifying the area and bringing their high salaries to bear on the local property prices. Mr Lowgradeofficebod is simply able to keep his state sanctioned and protected ownership, and either keep the windfall by selling at the price generated by others, or collect the rental value (again collected by others).
Ultimately, what he passes on to his children is not “property” derived from his own labour, it is another state sanctioned monopoly allowing him the right to exclude others and keep the rent from community generated location value. What he passes on to his children, is the right to charge rent to someone else’s children.
Consider the same house in Bradford- not quite the same legacy right?
The fact that Mr Lowgradeofficebod paid for the place out of taxed earned income does not alter the fact that the value is created by others, and represents an ongoing cost to the whole of society.
It is unfair that certain indivduals get to keep the fruits produced by society as their own, yet those who work for their livings are taxed at a rate of 50% per month.
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }