Inheritance Tax

[BillyStubbsTears]

Well, they should increase other taxes to cover it then. It is an unfair tax and irrespective of how important you claim it is that doesn't make it a fair tax.

There is a large body of economics research that strongly points to the need for a wealth tax to keep vitality in economies. Happy to discuss the logic behind it if you want. IHT is the closest thing we have to a significant Wealth Tax.

Your "unfair" comment is based on a very simplistic assessment.

[BillyStubbsTears]

PS. Check your maths

[Bentley Bullet]

And there are plenty of countries that have abolished it.

Maths isn't my strong point, so go on, tell me where I'm wrong.

[BillyStubbsTears]

There are plenty of countries that have implemented all sorts of damaging economic policies. I want my country to do the best it can, not make the same mistakes other countries make.

7 out of 788 is 0.88%, not 0.0088%.

[silent majority]

SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?

I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.

Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.

Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!

I think this sums up why discussions on IHT get so heated.

People want to think that their success is all down to them and their efforts.

My take, as someone who has done reasonably well is that it is very easy to discount the role that fortune plays in individual success.

I was paid by the state to be the first person in my family to go to university. The state also paid my fees.

I was paid by the state to get a higher degree.

Up until now, I've been very lucky with health and I've never had a serious illness that stopped me working.

I've been exceptionally lucky in that the company I run has three times come close to failure, only to be invited to tender for game changing contracts.

My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years.

None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts. I've made the most of them, but in a different world, with a different roll of the dice, or a society that valued different things, I would have had a very different outcome.

It makes me humble and it makes me realise it's NOT all about me and my efforts. But I get that some people don't like considering that possibility.

You've not been reading my responses have you?

I built my own house, me, nobody else!

The state didn't pay for me to go to University, I did.

Believe me when I say my success is down to me, nobody ever left me a penny, or contributed to anything I've produced.

[silent majority]

SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?

I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.

Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.

Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!

It's not too late to spend, or give it away, whatever gives you feel good.

Luck and fortune plays a part in all our lives. For sure it's poss to lead a less risky life, but still. Abuse, robbery, murder, ill health, your industry not being savaged by innovation, changes etc, are all in the lap of the gods. No one is saying you didn't work hard, be astute. But that's no guarantee of material wealth. You have been lucky, many haven't. More to the point, your kids have been lucky having you providing. How much will the relative quality of their lives be affected by having say an extra £100k which is effectively taken from the communities around them?

You'll need to explain to me how my kids have taken money from the communities around them if I manage to leave them anything. Are you suggesting that everything I leave behind belongs to the community? Communist nonsense.

Get this through your thick skull, its my money, I earned it, I paid tax on it.

[danumdon]

SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?

I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.

Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.

Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!

I think this sums up why discussions on IHT get so heated.

People want to think that their success is all down to them and their efforts.

My take, as someone who has done reasonably well is that it is very easy to discount the role that fortune plays in individual success.

I was paid by the state to be the first person in my family to go to university. The state also paid my fees.

I was paid by the state to get a higher degree.

Up until now, I've been very lucky with health and I've never had a serious illness that stopped me working.

I've been exceptionally lucky in that the company I run has three times come close to failure, only to be invited to tender for game changing contracts.

My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years.

None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts. I've made the most of them, but in a different world, with a different roll of the dice, or a society that valued different things, I would have had a very different outcome.

It makes me humble and it makes me realise it's NOT all about me and my efforts. But I get that some people don't like considering that possibility.

Luck,let me think?

Was it luck that enabled you to get good enough grades to be able to apply to go to Uni?

Was it luck that made you stay in and revise for your exams to gain your degree?

Was it luck that you were sensible enough to ensure you had a good diet and took after yourself physically?

Was it luck that you had enough drive and ambition to run your own company?

Was it luck that you left Denaby and moved to an area where property has increased at a decent rate?

"None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts"

Never heard such cobblers, of course it was all down to luck.

If i was you i'd rush out tonight and buy a lottery ticket because your the luckiest fu**er i've ever heard of.

[BillyStubbsTears]

SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?

I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.

Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.

Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!

I think this sums up why discussions on IHT get so heated.

People want to think that their success is all down to them and their efforts.

My take, as someone who has done reasonably well is that it is very easy to discount the role that fortune plays in individual success.

I was paid by the state to be the first person in my family to go to university. The state also paid my fees.

I was paid by the state to get a higher degree.

Up until now, I've been very lucky with health and I've never had a serious illness that stopped me working.

I've been exceptionally lucky in that the company I run has three times come close to failure, only to be invited to tender for game changing contracts.

My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years.

None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts. I've made the most of them, but in a different world, with a different roll of the dice, or a society that valued different things, I would have had a very different outcome.

It makes me humble and it makes me realise it's NOT all about me and my efforts. But I get that some people don't like considering that possibility.

You've not been reading my responses have you?

I built my own house, me, nobody else!

The state didn't pay for me to go to University, I did.

Believe me when I say my success is down to me, nobody ever left me a penny, or contributed to anything I've produced.

Do you exist outside of society?

[BillyStubbsTears]

SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?

I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.

Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.

Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!

I think this sums up why discussions on IHT get so heated.

People want to think that their success is all down to them and their efforts.

My take, as someone who has done reasonably well is that it is very easy to discount the role that fortune plays in individual success.

I was paid by the state to be the first person in my family to go to university. The state also paid my fees.

I was paid by the state to get a higher degree.

Up until now, I've been very lucky with health and I've never had a serious illness that stopped me working.

I've been exceptionally lucky in that the company I run has three times come close to failure, only to be invited to tender for game changing contracts.

My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years.

None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts. I've made the most of them, but in a different world, with a different roll of the dice, or a society that valued different things, I would have had a very different outcome.

It makes me humble and it makes me realise it's NOT all about me and my efforts. But I get that some people don't like considering that possibility.

Luck,let me think?

Was it luck that enabled you to get good enough grades to be able to apply to go to Uni?

Was it luck that made you stay in and revise for your exams to gain your degree?

Was it luck that you were sensible enough to ensure you had a good diet and took after yourself physically?

Was it luck that you had enough drive and ambition to run your own company?

Was it luck that you left Denaby and moved to an area where property has increased at a decent rate?

"None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts"

Never heard such cobblers, of course it was all down to luck.

If i was you i'd rush out tonight and buy a lottery ticket because your the luckiest fu**er i've ever heard of.

Well this is interesting. The bile that not being egotistical can provoke.

[belton rover]

SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?

I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.

Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.

Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!

I think this sums up why discussions on IHT get so heated.

People want to think that their success is all down to them and their efforts.

My take, as someone who has done reasonably well is that it is very easy to discount the role that fortune plays in individual success.

I was paid by the state to be the first person in my family to go to university. The state also paid my fees.

I was paid by the state to get a higher degree.

Up until now, I've been very lucky with health and I've never had a serious illness that stopped me working.

I've been exceptionally lucky in that the company I run has three times come close to failure, only to be invited to tender for game changing contracts.

My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years.

None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts. I've made the most of them, but in a different world, with a different roll of the dice, or a society that valued different things, I would have had a very different outcome.

It makes me humble and it makes me realise it's NOT all about me and my efforts. But I get that some people don't like considering that possibility.

You've not been reading my responses have you?

I built my own house, me, nobody else!

The state didn't pay for me to go to University, I did.

Believe me when I say my success is down to me, nobody ever left me a penny, or contributed to anything I've produced.

This is the problem when individuals appear to assume that their own experiences must be similar  for everyone.
Your story is one that shows exactly why inheritance tax is wrong.
You and I have chosen different paths in terms of how our children receive an ‘inheritance’. I haven’t been additionally taxed on how I have financially helped my children, and neither should you.
It really should be that simple.
If someone decides they owe the state something when they die, then leave it something.

[danumdon]

SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?

I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.

Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.

Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!

I think this sums up why discussions on IHT get so heated.

People want to think that their success is all down to them and their efforts.

My take, as someone who has done reasonably well is that it is very easy to discount the role that fortune plays in individual success.

I was paid by the state to be the first person in my family to go to university. The state also paid my fees.

I was paid by the state to get a higher degree.

Up until now, I've been very lucky with health and I've never had a serious illness that stopped me working.

I've been exceptionally lucky in that the company I run has three times come close to failure, only to be invited to tender for game changing contracts.

My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years.

None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts. I've made the most of them, but in a different world, with a different roll of the dice, or a society that valued different things, I would have had a very different outcome.

It makes me humble and it makes me realise it's NOT all about me and my efforts. But I get that some people don't like considering that possibility.

Luck,let me think?

Was it luck that enabled you to get good enough grades to be able to apply to go to Uni?

Was it luck that made you stay in and revise for your exams to gain your degree?

Was it luck that you were sensible enough to ensure you had a good diet and took after yourself physically?

Was it luck that you had enough drive and ambition to run your own company?

Was it luck that you left Denaby and moved to an area where property has increased at a decent rate?

"None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts"

Never heard such cobblers, of course it was all down to luck.

If i was you i'd rush out tonight and buy a lottery ticket because your the luckiest fu**er i've ever heard of.

Well this is interesting. The bile that not being egotistical can provoke.

No bile here buddy just incredulity at what you just posted.

[Bentley Bullet]

There are plenty of countries that have implemented all sorts of damaging economic policies. I want my country to do the best it can, not make the same mistakes other countries make.

7 out of 788 is 0.88%, not 0.0088%.

I also want my country to do well, but I also want it to be fair. Inheritance tax is unfair, so it should be abolished in my opinion. You, on the other hand, differ in that approach and insist on keeping it, despite its unfairness.

It seems I am with the majority opinion of UK citizens on this, and if there was a referendum on it, the current opinion would deem you a loser (again!).

I'm all for progress, and I don't think those countries that have abolished the Inheritance tax have given up on progress either. They obviously think it is the way forward, and so do I.

Regarding the figures I gave I forgot to X by 100. I did say my maths isn't one of my strong points. Mind you, the correct figures show that even more people are being ripped off by IHT than I first suggested. At least I can proudly say that wanting to spend other people's money who have had it taken off them unfairly isn't one of my strong points either.

[BillyStubbsTears]

SM, how do you think your kids are not lucky to be able to receive at least all of £500k or £800k of £1m inheritance?

I think the government scrapping these loopholes like trusts, as well as all the off shore pirating is also the way to go.

Simply because luck has played no part in this at all. As a family we made decisions along the way which means I can leave my children something I hope. Even that’s not a given seeing as we have no idea if either one of us should end up in private care which will need funding.

Maybe what we should have done is spend every penny and rely on the state to support us!

I think this sums up why discussions on IHT get so heated.

People want to think that their success is all down to them and their efforts.

My take, as someone who has done reasonably well is that it is very easy to discount the role that fortune plays in individual success.

I was paid by the state to be the first person in my family to go to university. The state also paid my fees.

I was paid by the state to get a higher degree.

Up until now, I've been very lucky with health and I've never had a serious illness that stopped me working.

I've been exceptionally lucky in that the company I run has three times come close to failure, only to be invited to tender for game changing contracts.

My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years.

None of those things were predominantly or even at all down to my valiant efforts. I've made the most of them, but in a different world, with a different roll of the dice, or a society that valued different things, I would have had a very different outcome.

It makes me humble and it makes me realise it's NOT all about me and my efforts. But I get that some people don't like considering that possibility.

You've not been reading my responses have you?

I built my own house, me, nobody else!

The state didn't pay for me to go to University, I did.

Believe me when I say my success is down to me, nobody ever left me a penny, or contributed to anything I've produced.

This is the problem when individuals appear to assume that their own experiences must be similar  for everyone.
Your story is one that shows exactly why inheritance tax is wrong.
You and I have chosen different paths in terms of how our children receive an ‘inheritance’. I haven’t been additionally taxed on how I have financially helped my children, and neither should you.
It really should be that simple.
If someone decides they owe the state something when they die, then leave it something.

Forgive me but the situation is FAR more complex than that. It's not a simple "What's mine is mine and I choose to do what I want with it in absolute isolation" issue.

Here's the key in my mind. EVERY decision that we make as individuals affects the whole of society. I think we have a responsibility as a society to attempt to incentivise individuals to do things that are not just what we want to do, but are better for the future of society. Because if we don't try to leave a better society than we inherit (sic) then we should be ashamed of ourselves.

And here's the thing with saying "My wealth is mine and mine to do what I want with."

There is a clear trend in all modern capitalist economies, that the rate of return on wealth is significantly greater than the increase in wages.

So, if you don't have a wealth tax, like IHT, wealth tends to get more and more concentrated over time. The children and grandchildren who inherit wealth will typically get wealthier themselves, even if they are no more able and work no harder than children who don't inherit wealth.

In other words, without meaning it, a society that allows wealth to be passed down the generations effectively pulls up the rope ladder behind the well off and makes it increasingly difficult for poor but talented people to succeed.

My take is that that sort of society is deeply unfair, and very likely to be deeply unstable. I think that is far, far less unfair a future to bequeath our kids than any unfairness in progressively taxing inheritances.

What I would argue we need to do is disincentivise wealth accumulation, and spread opportunity. One way you do that is to tax wealth and use that to incentivise work.

IHT is the nearest thing we have to a serious Wealth Tax. I'd go further and have a direct Wealth Tax, but in the absence of that, the last thing we want to do is eliminate IHT.

 

[belton rover]

But IHT doesn’t just affect the very wealthy.
Have I been irresponsible towards society because I have spent any excess earnings (after taxes and NI and a pension that will help me in retirement) on my family. Should I have been less selfish and ensured I had some to leave to the state when I die?
Surely you can’t think that?

[drfchound]

I think he does belton but probably won't admit to it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

But IHT doesn’t just affect the very wealthy.
Have I been irresponsible towards society because I have spent any excess earnings (after taxes and NI and a pension that will help me in retirement) on my family. Should I have been less selfish and ensured I had some to leave to the state when I die?
Surely you can’t think that?

I'm sorry Belton but that's an entirely false question.

It's not "spend it all or give it to the state" as I'm sure you do see.

The point of an inheritance tax on wealth is that you CAN leave most to your dependents. Just not all.

If you want not to be a wild spender, but instead choose to maximise what you pass on, that goes hand in hand with maximising what you pay in IHT (avoidance apart).

Surely you can't not see that?

[SydneyRover]

It is a very interesting topic, seeing others points of view. Wealth as I said previously is comparative and depends greatly upon your own circumstances as to how you view it. Luck is a great variable, most I assume would say they were lucky to be born in a country that conquered rather than one that had uninvited and ill behaved 'guests'

I've had plenty of luck of both types which has greatly shaped my life, from flat broke, several times to a position of relative wealth.

[belton rover]

But IHT doesn’t just affect the very wealthy.
Have I been irresponsible towards society because I have spent any excess earnings (after taxes and NI and a pension that will help me in retirement) on my family. Should I have been less selfish and ensured I had some to leave to the state when I die?
Surely you can’t think that?

I'm sorry Belton but that's an entirely false question.

It's not "spend it all or give it to the state" as I'm sure you do see.

The point of an inheritance tax on wealth is that you CAN leave most to your dependents. Just not all.

If you want not to be a wild spender, but instead choose to maximise what you pass on, that goes hand in hand with maximising what you pay in IHT (avoidance apart).

Surely you can't not see that?

It certainly isn’t a ‘false’ question, whatever that means. But you can choose not to answer it if you want.
Nowhere have I argued that I shouldn’t have to give ALL my money to the state. I’m not sure why you are suggesting I have.
I am not a wild spender. I like to think I have used some of my money to help my children become respectable members of society who most certainly do not use the state to feed off.
By the way, the money I’m talking about is minimal. I just chose not to save it until after I’m gone.

[BillyStubbsTears]

It IS a false question because the choice ISN'T between saving nothing (being "irresponsible towards society because I have spent any excess earnings " as you said) or  saving only to give those savings to the state.

No-one does the latter.

So it's a question that doesn't exist in the real world.

The question is whether it is good for society to have ALL your savings passed down to your choice of beneficiaries, or whether a better outcome is to have SOME of that (rarely more than 20%, even for the very rich, and much less than that for most) redistributed in society.

I think the latter is a better outcome for society as a whole. For all the reasons I've given.

[MachoMadness]

People assume that being privileged means you haven't had to work hard, and take it as some kind of grave insult. This thread is full of it. To my mind, if you are even in a position to be talking about leaving an estate worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, you are extraordinarily privileged in this day and age. Doesn't mean you didn't earn it, but for the millennials and those born after, there is next to no chance of that happening no matter how hard you work. Unless you can rely on your parents for help, of course, whether that's through inheritance or other means. I wouldn't have been able to afford a house if I wasn't lucky enough to live at home for a bit which let me save for a deposit, and the same goes for everyone I know of my age. That's the way society is set up now. It's only right for those who benefitted from a society that gave you low house prices, fair wages, and a continually improving standard of living to pay a bit back to correct the balance for future generations who have none of those things. Again, it doesn't mean you didn't have to work to make the most of those opportunities, and good for you if you did so, but most working people today do not have those same opportunities. That's why inheritance tax is needed.

It's not the fault of some 25 year old from Balby that they were born in an era of stagnant wage growth, crazy house prices, and of private landlords buying up all the housing stock and driving up rents. It's not their fault that they've lived through the same amount of recessions as someone born in the 1950s. And it's not their fault if their parents aren't well off enough to support them in finding a home.

That has to be redressed. If that means some next of kin kids have to make do with £400,000 instead of half a million when the time comes, or whatever it shakes out at, that's too bad.

[knockers]

Martin Lewis did a show on this subject last night so I guess it’s not just the Free Press that get their ideas from this forum.
Wonder what user name he goes under!

[belton rover]

It IS a false question because the choice ISN'T between saving nothing (being "irresponsible towards society because I have spent any excess earnings " as you said) or  saving only to give those savings to the state.

No-one does the latter.

So it's a question that doesn't exist in the real world.

The question is whether it is good for society to have ALL your savings passed down to your choice of beneficiaries, or whether a better outcome is to have SOME of that (rarely more than 20%, even for the very rich, and much less than that for most) redistributed in society.

I think the latter is a better outcome for society as a whole. For all the reasons I've given.

Billy. The key word to my question was SOME, not ALL. Let me rephrase it:
Am I being selfish towards society by choosing to leave no inheritance for my children after I die, resulting in leaving nothing to the state through inheritance tax?
And just to be clear, my decision was made without a single thought of inheritance tax.

[BillyStubbsTears]

No Belton. You're not.

[belton rover]

So why is someone who chooses to do pretty much the same as me, only after they have died, selfish, because they don’t want to lose some of it to the state (as you’ve implied), just like I didn’t?

[BillyStubbsTears]

So why is someone who chooses to do pretty much the same as me, only after they have died, selfish, because they don’t want to lose some of it to the state (as you’ve implied), just like I didn’t?

You are putting words in my mouth that I have neither used nor had any intention of implying. Please don't do that.

[belton rover]

So why is someone who chooses to do pretty much the same as me, only after they have died, selfish, because they don’t want to lose some of it to the state (as you’ve implied), just like I didn’t?

You are putting words in my mouth that I haven't used. Please don't do that.

I have done no such thing, hence the word ‘implied’. I was very careful to use that word in a seemingly futile attempt for not to accuse me of putting words into your mouth, as you often do.
You think it’s wrong for people not to want to pay inheritance tax. You don’t think what I’ve done is wrong.
What’s the difference?

[BillyStubbsTears]

I didn't "imply" them. You read an implication that never crossed my mind. It's not an uncommon issue when our opinions differ.

I do NOT think it is wrong for people not to want to pay ANY tax. Every nerve in my body wants to pay as little tax as I can get away with.

What I think is that taxes are necessary. And some of them that quite naturally feel unfair to the individual are actually beneficial for society as a whole.

[belton rover]

I don’t think there is any sensible member on here who wouldn’t make a similar implication based on everything you’ve written on this subject.
However, if you say you didn’t mean that, then I accept that.
Back to my question:
What’s the difference?

[SydneyRover]

It's all comparative pud

I have zero idea what you mean. What do you think about the tax?

I mean wealth is comparative, relative to what you have and to where you are likely to end up on the ladder You could also look at how poor football clubs manage compared to the premier league, look at IH as helping in a small way to assisting the clubs in the lower leagues.

if you need another example look no further than this recent article below and compare the plight of people described in it to your own.

IT helps level the playing field, assists in social mobility. I support anything that does that.

............. ''Physical and mental wellbeing, community building, life skills; the mothers and babies programme hits a lot of notes. That’s in part because it has to. Doncaster is one of the most impoverished places in England, where a third of children are living in poverty and 41% of residents fall into the bottom 20% of incomes nationwide. Women in Doncaster have the third-worst healthy life expectancy in the country, with an average of 24 years spent living with ill health (for men this figure is 21 years)'' .................

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/nov/11/babies-battle-ropes-and-billy-joel-how-doncaster-rovers-reach-out

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton.

I don't flatter myself that I know what people's meaning on here is beyond the actual words they use. Respectfully, I'd suggest that a lot of the bad feeling that tends to crystallise in these discussions comes from people doing precisely that. But that's just my take.

I still don't know what your question is. Your last one used the word "selfish" and I've explained that I don't think that applies.

I think it's natural human instinct for most of us to indulge our offspring, whether that's by spending on them when you are alive, or by wanting them to inherit as much as possible when you are gone. Of course it is.

But I also think neither extreme is good for society. And I think society has the right to restrict individuals' behaviour.

As it happens, I think your extreme is the less damaging of the two, because you spending money provides someone else's income. That only becomes problematic if everyone does it and the result is massive inflationary pressures. But that's manageable.

For all the reasons I've said, I think that the unrestricted passing of wealth down generations is deeply problematic for society. But I understand the desire to do that and I understand people disliking being taxed on that. I just think that their annoyance is not a good enough reason not to impose that tax.