Zoe Williams suggests we're coming at the #inheritancetax 'debate' from the wrong direction:

'...we should go in studs first: suggest setting inheritance tax at 100%. No windfalls for anyone, ever; total generational redistribution delivered by death, the merry reaper. You may have questions, such as “what’s it all for, if I can’t burnish the prospects of my 58-year-old heirs?”& those questions may be legit. At least the debate will be different, and more interesting'

theguardian.com/commentisfree/

@ChrisMayLA6
"Of all forms of taxation this seems the wisest. By taxing estates heavily at death the State marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire’s unworthy life" ~ Andrew Carnegie (who also proposed it should be 100%)

Follow

@rwalker1501 @HighlandLawyer @ChrisMayLA6 It's very believable. He walked that walk. Through his smart investments in the burgeoning steel industry and in Pullman cars for railroads he became stupendously wealthy -- wealthiest in the U.S.A. By the end of his life he had given 90 per cent of his fortune away on large-scale philanthropy.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.