It’s because they hate the bourgeois
We have been trying to think through this idea of charging both capital gains tax and also inheritance tax. We’re not wholly certain that we’ve quite, exactly, diagnosed the motivation here but we think that it’s because they just hate the bourgeois.
Politicians have considered plans to ditch the CGT uplift for years, with various think tanks such as Tax Justice UK, Centax and Fairer Share having thrown their weight behind the policy.
We would hesitate to describe any of those as think tanks. Campaigning groupuscules, yes.
We think the motivation comes from this:
Families who currently fall within the inheritance tax net, where assets of the deceased exceed £500,000 for an individual or £1m for a couple, would bear the brunt of potential changes.
Back when the inheritance tax allowance was much lower the shrieking in favour of double taxation was also much lower. For no one did get to pass on properly bourgeois - by which we mean sufficient capital to not have to rely upon the state - sums without paying a 40% fine on it. Now that the limit has been raised then that wholly desirable to us cascade of wealth down the generations is possible. We are not saying that £25,000 a year, about the risk free income from £1 million, is grand riches but it is a certain independence from the politicals and Lanyards over how to live a life. Which is the thing driving the double taxation demands. How can we insist upon all within the state, all from the state, if people can become economically independent?
Our view of the desirable society is one in which all do achieve liberty and freedom from control. This is not acceptable to those who desire to do such controlling. Thus this demand for double taxation is being driven by that raise in the allowance for inheritance tax. We tend to think much the same drives the demands for an exit tax. What do you mean people can just leave?
We really do think it comes down to this. What is the point of struggling for political control of society if the people are to be sufficiently economically independent that they can live free of the tender ministrations of those in government? The horrors, eh?
We are willing to consider alternative explanations but that’s the one that resonates with us at present.
Tim Worstall