Apr 2008 30

Defending the indefensible2

Further to my comments on the Fabian Society’s attempts to "defend inheritance tax" and launch an anti-taxpayers alliance, Nick Cowen over at Civitas has written up an account of the Fabians’ debate on the topic, held last night.

It’s an amusing account, and lays out several crucial arguments against both inheritance tax and the tinpot alternative that the Fabians’ pamphlet proposed. I wish I could have attended myself and given you an account straight from the horses’ mouth, but I’m not sure how well a speech from the TaxPayers’ Alliance would have gone down! Nick’s analysis of the meeting is well worth a read.

Related Posts

  • Steve Robson

    Inheritance tax is an excellent tax. It is on unearned, windfall income, only kicks in at a relatively high sum and only impacts on a small percentage of the population. Meanwhile, its redistributive effects help to create a more meritocratic society.
    The arguments against it are so pathetic. Double taxation is stupid because often the money has never been taxed, if it is equity on a house for example and anyway there are lots of examples of double taxation, VAT is paid out of net income for most people. As for the more people are dragged in by rising house prices argument, what nonsense. It just shows its a windfall that people shouldn’t bank on. Go for lower house prices and less tax then, you’ll end up with less. Should happen in the next couple of years anyway.
    I do admit you have done brilliantly to get a campaign against it. Once again lots of people who’ll never inherit persuaded to be against thew tax, while the fat cat tory boys and TPA leadership wait anxiously for their relatives to peg it so they can add yet more to their stash.
    Long live inheritance tax!!

  • Geoffrey Dron

    We may have differing views as to the merits of IHT in principle or as to the details, but to call it indefensible does TPA no service – a pity, as I support it’s campaigns in the majority of cases.