Timmy elsewhereApril 6, 2014 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere9 CommentsAt the ASI. Sure we should abolish inheritance tax: most certainly we should abolish the one we have. previousOn the Islington child abuse thingnextTempus mutandis 9 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere” dearieme April 6, 2014 at 9:59 am “But that’s rather to miss what a nest egg does for people: it provides freedom in this life. ” It’s not to miss the point; the people who disapprove of nest eggs do so precisely because they provide freedom in this life. Luke April 6, 2014 at 7:03 pm Does the idea of everyone having a nest egg really work? Cash/bonds are a debt owed to us by others, shares a claim to part of the fruit of others’ labour, property a right to claim rents from others. If we *all* have a nest egg, that means we all owe each other money/claim part of the fruit of each other’s labour/rent property to each other. So what we gain in freedom we lose in income. Why not confiscate the nest eggs to provide your beloved CBI? Surreptitious Evil April 6, 2014 at 10:43 pm Why not confiscate the nest eggs to provide your beloved CBI? Why not just steal anything you want? Surreptitious Evil April 6, 2014 at 10:45 pm On a less aggressive note, because “incentives matter”. Implement your confiscation, then, really quite shortly, there will be a lot of very high spending pensioners and a minimal number of nest eggs to confiscate. Luke April 6, 2014 at 10:53 pm SE, answer the question. If we all have nest eggs, we all owe each other money. Yes or no? (If you are suggesting that rich people should be able to pass their money tax free to their rich children so their rich children don’t have to work, fair enough. But just say so.) Ironman April 7, 2014 at 8:49 am Luke 1. As you define share ownership and property as being in entirely exploitive relationships with labour and occupiers, a discussion with you would be a dialogue of the deaf. So SE isn’t going to ‘answer the question’. 2. Read Tim’s post again and try to understand who he says is really paying this tax. john77 April 7, 2014 at 6:27 pm @ Luke NO Go back to, if not the roots of capitalism, mediaeval capitalism The miller’s eldest competent son or son-in-law inherited the mill. One of the blacksmith’s sons inherited the forge (well, just possible that a daughter married a guy big and strong enough to take on the job, but almost invariable a son). Going personal – so may not be generally the case but is undeniable true – my paternal great-grandmother left £50 to my grandfather and the rest to her daughter (who was a widow) so this was not that he did not have to work, which he did until he died, but that she, who could not work would have something to live on. “If we *all* have a nest egg, that means we all owe each other money” No, not true. Anyhow, the theory is *not* that every single person inherits something. It is that *some* people can use the inheritance to become successful entrepreneurs (unlike my grandfather who was very unsuccessful). Mr Potarto April 7, 2014 at 6:42 pm Luke, If we all work, then we’re all working for each other. Why don’t we all stop working and just live like kings? Luke April 7, 2014 at 9:50 pm Mr Potarto, I think we may be agreeing with each other – but I’ve just had a couple of pints. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.